[Sven Nilsen]

There's been a lot of discussion regarding the changes to AAC (along with comparisons to other courses that have received the Open Doctor's Touch).  What strikes me is the criticism of Mr. Jones as an architect.  I'm not so sure the criticism should be directed at the man, rather at the system that is asking him to make the changes. 

Phil's comments yesterday highlighted the effect these alterations have on the game in general (member and public fee play), and left me with a few things to ponder:

1.  What other courses are no longer fun for the members or Saturday morning permanent tee time holders because they've been tweaked for the pros?  (Examples so far - AAC and Cog #4)

2.  Why is this so?

3.  What alternatives to the Rees treatment are available to make a course tougher for the pros while keeping it eminently playable for the members and daily fee payers?

[JMEvensky]

1.  What other courses are no longer fun for the members or Saturday morning permanent tee time holders because they've been tweaked for the pros?  (Examples so far - AAC and Cog #4)

I'm not saying that PM is wrong on his AAC member rounds figure,just that I have trouble believing that any non-member is privy to it. I'd want to hear it from someone who'd know first hand.

I doubt if Rees Jones held a gun to the membership's head--they saw plenty of proposals before they voted.If AAC's membership wanted these changes,it's not really anyone else's concern.

Those who dislike the changes enough can certainly find another Atlanta club where they can pay dues.

[Michael Dugger]

While an avowed Rees hater, I think Mickelson's comments were a bit out of touch.

Why in the world would the membership play "from the tips" like the tour players do in a major championship?

So I think, as usual, it's a matter of playing the proper set of tees for your game.  Only a pompous ass is going to think he can pull off what the best on the world do, and even then Tiger Woods shot 77 in his first round.  Many good players were made to look anemic.

[Mark Saltzman]

There's been a lot of discussion regarding the changes to AAC (along with comparisons to other courses that have received the Open Doctor's Touch).  What strikes me is the criticism of Mr. Jones as an architect.  I'm not so sure the criticism should be directed at the man, rather at the system that is asking him to make the changes. 

Phil's comments yesterday highlighted the effect these alterations have on the game in general (member and public fee play), and left me with a few things to ponder:

1.  What other courses are no longer fun for the members or Saturday morning permanent tee time holders because they've been tweaked for the pros?  (Examples so far - AAC and Cog #4)

Perhaps Oakland Hills, though it seems the membership loves telling people about the difficulty of their golf course.  If you shoot a score well above your handicap, members enjoy saying "that's Oakland Hills for ya".


2.  Why is this so?

I think a big change is narrowing the fairways to runway style fairways.  Old fairways had more width and 'intelligent' width.  That is width that could be used by players who wanted more fairway to aim at when not challenging the hazards.


3.  What alternatives to the Rees treatment are available to make a course tougher for the pros while keeping it eminently playable for the members and daily fee payers?
At AAC for example, a really simple change would be not keeping the run-offs into the water kept at fairway height all the time.  By introducing a cut of rough, shots missed by just a couple of feet would not run into the water.  This could be used on holes like 4, 6, 11, 12, and 15.  This minor maintenance change would make the course play significantly easier.

[Sven Nilsen]

While an avowed Rees hater, I think Mickelson's comments were a bit out of touch.

Why in the world would the membership play "from the tips" like the tour players do in a major championship?

So I think, as usual, it's a matter of playing the proper set of tees for your game.  Only a pompous ass is going to think he can pull off what the best on the world do, and even then Tiger Woods shot 77 in his first round.  Many good players were made to look anemic.

Michael:

As noted in another thread, I don't think Phil was criticizing the concept of lengthening, rather the changes made that take away the ground game option, the encroachment of water hazards, the addition of bunkers in front and behind greens, etc. 

[Mark Saltzman]

While an avowed Rees hater, I think Mickelson's comments were a bit out of touch.

Why in the world would the membership play "from the tips" like the tour players do in a major championship?

So I think, as usual, it's a matter of playing the proper set of tees for your game.  Only a pompous ass is going to think he can pull off what the best on the world do, and even then Tiger Woods shot 77 in his first round.  Many good players were made to look anemic.

Michael:

As noted in another thread, I don't think Phil was criticizing the concept of lengthening, rather the changes made that take away the ground game option, the encroachment of water hazards, the addition of bunkers in front and behind greens, etc.  

Sven,

I agree.  My biggest issue with AAC was hazards both on the inside and outside of doglegs.  Not only does it take away from strategy, but it makes the course both boring and difficult.  A hole like 8, no matter what tee you play it from, is a really difficult tee shot with water left, deep bunkers right, and an approach that is uphill and semi-blocked by an overhanging tree.  

And it's not like members are going to be playing a tee so far up that hitting iron off the tee is really an option.

[Jay Flemma]

Sven, if what you say is true, why does he create so many original designs, but so few that stay really high in the rankings?

I am not an avowed Res hater, I just think other designers do better original work.  Rees is actually a nice guy who does what he's asked to do by the powers that be...

[Dan Herrmann]

Sven,
What other course?   Torrey Pines South.

[Pete Lavallee]

Torrey Pines South is cetainly a great example of a course that is much less fun to play after the Open Doictor's surgery. The strange thing is, the white tees are still the same length as before the redesign. So it's not the length that makes the course fun free. Ress added no water, the pond on 18 was there originally. So it's not ploppoing a pond next to every green that makes it tough. You can run the ball on every green there; so saying the ground game option makes the course fun for average players is indeed false. I have never played a round there where someone railed 3 woods onto the green and shot a good round. His courses are just plain hard and the only way to shoot good scores or have any fun is to execute tough shots over and over again. 

[Matthew Petersen]

Torrey Pines South is cetainly a great example of a course that is much less fun to play after the Open Doictor's surgery. The strange thing is, the white tees are still the same length as before the redesign. So it's not the length that makes the course fun free. Ress added no water, the pond on 18 was there originally. So it's not ploppoing a pond next to every green that makes it tough. You can run the ball on every green there; so saying the ground game option makes the course fun for average players is indeed false. I have never played a round there where someone railed 3 woods onto the green and shot a good round. His courses are just plain hard and the only way to shoot good scores or have any fun is to execute tough shots over and over again. 

But what did Rees specifically change at Torrey to make it less fun? Just harder?

from a routing standpoint it doesn't seem like that course was ever much fun.

[Bob_Huntley]

While an avowed Rees hater, I think Mickelson's comments were a bit out of touch.

Michael,

Would you explain what you mean by being a "Rees Jones hater." Does golf architecture, that is not to your taste, bring out the assassin in you?

Perhaps you would be good enough to enumerate the number of Rees Jones courses that you have played and tell me about their short-comings. I need to learn about them.

Thanks.

Bob

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Rip out his traps after the event.

[Dan Herrmann]

Pete - well said.

If I were playing 10 rounds at Torrey Pines, I'd play North 8 times. 

[Pete Lavallee]

But what did Rees specifically change at Torrey to make it less fun? Just harder?

from a routing standpoint it doesn't seem like that course was ever much fun.

Matthew,

That is an excellent question. Many have indicated that by not allowing the run up shot at ACC it is over penal to the members; but I can assure you that an open alley way in front does not make the course play easier. The original Billy Bell layout at the South was always a long course; 5 par 4's were in excess of 430, which at the time was considered a long par 4. The par 5's however were all quite reachable for longer hitters as they were all in the 520 range. So it was always a course where the long hitter had a better chance. The original greens were steeply sloped from back to front, but they had a more less homogeneous slope; no sections or tiers. Rees built up the front of the greens to be more or less level with the back, in effect leveling them so the USGA could attain their target speeds of 14 on the stimpmeter. He then divided each green into three sections seperated by ridges. The sections are all fairly level, but it is difficult to putt from one section to another. The original bunkers were fairly shallow and not as numerous as they are now. The raising of the green surface allowed him to make all the greenside bunkers very deep; recovery from them is not easy.

He also took a que from his Dad and placed fairway bunkers exactly where players want to land in the fairway; there is not a surperfluous fairway on the property. You can't really lay back from them or you'll have too long a shot into the green.

So you have to :

Hit the fairway and miss the fairway bunker

Hit the correct portion of the green

Miss the deep greenside bunkers

A recipe for a great challange to the modern bomber, but no fun for the general public. It's the type of course you play once to say you did and see how your game measures up; then have your fun out on the North course!

[Dan Herrmann]

Exactly.

[Philippe Binette]

At the end, Rees Jones is doing the job, locating and drawing the bunkers, changing the greens, ... so he gets the criticism.

a few things you can control as a designer makes the course tougher for those guys on tour.

1) Angles of the tee: TPC Sawgrass is a great example, it forces players to pick a line and work the ball. They can't just bomb it straight. Rees Jones tends to have straight holes with bunkers on the side

2) Decisions: with formulaic bunkering, from 275 to 340, players aren't forced to take important decision, driver or 3 wood to stay short of the trouble.

3) Fairway slopes: produce bounces, complicatees the yardage calculation and feel and also generate sidehill lies . Rees Jones has levelled fairway on more than often while preparing a course for majors.

4) Intimidation and depth perception. Bunker that are scary and close to targets, which makes the targets look small.

5) Sequence in a routing: a couple of short par 4 or a short par 3 that looks like a birdie opportunity puts pressure on the player to make the birdie and often that lead to mistakes. If you have a 350 par 4 followed by a 490 par 4, you play with the player's mind. Since all the par 4s are longer than 410 and the par 3s longer that 200 on most of the re-design Rees Jones does... the player don't see one hole as more important than the other to make birdie..

6) Great greens and gree surrounds: the big equalizer

[Sven Nilsen]

At the end, Rees Jones is doing the job, locating and drawing the bunkers, changing the greens, ... so he gets the criticism.

a few things you can control as a designer makes the course tougher for those guys on tour.

1) Angles of the tee: TPC Sawgrass is a great example, it forces players to pick a line and work the ball. They can't just bomb it straight. Rees Jones tends to have straight holes with bunkers on the side

2) Decisions: with formulaic bunkering, from 275 to 340, players aren't forced to take important decision, driver or 3 wood to stay short of the trouble.

3) Fairway slopes: produce bounces, complicatees the yardage calculation and feel and also generate sidehill lies . Rees Jones has levelled fairway on more than often while preparing a course for majors.

4) Intimidation and depth perception. Bunker that are scary and close to targets, which makes the targets look small.

5) Sequence in a routing: a couple of short par 4 or a short par 3 that looks like a birdie opportunity puts pressure on the player to make the birdie and often that lead to mistakes. If you have a 350 par 4 followed by a 490 par 4, you play with the player's mind. Since all the par 4s are longer than 410 and the par 3s longer that 200 on most of the re-design Rees Jones does... the player don't see one hole as more important than the other to make birdie..

6) Great greens and gree surrounds: the big equalizer

Philippe:

Really enjoyed reading your post, especially point number 5.

[Carl Rogers]

When will Rees and other the other "mainstream" types start to imitate the new / old Pinehurst No. 2 look?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phillipe,

I enjoyed your post, too.  In Rees' defense, his latest iteration of Medinah No. 3, he shortened 15 to a driveable par 4 with pond and lengthened 16, which needed it because the sharp dogleg was only 200 or so from the tee.  So, from time to time, he can vary holes.  Not familar with all his work enough to comment.

Carl,

Of course, that sandy look only works on sandy sites.  If you recall, TPC Sawgrass had the waste sand look.  It turns out that things grow too good in FL to actively maintain sandy waste, even it if was sandy soil.  Not even so sure that PV and PH2 may not have the same problem.  I do recall hearing PV's super telling me that he spends a lot more time maintaining his unmaintained areas than he does the turf!

Its really not a practical look to implement in many places.

Not sure if the placement of Rees bunkers for a championship play is his work alone, or from the demand of the PGA, USGA, or membership to toughen the course a certain way.  He has done it that way for decades and its got him a lot of work.  Now, ideas about tournament set up is changing a bit, but he seems set in his ways, which have generally worked for him and the courses. 

Would love my chance to prepare a tournament course, to really find out.  I do know Rees has had some courses where he has broken the tournament mold and I think they are better.

As to the general Rees bashing here, I will say this.  IMHO, for all the thousands of words devoted to what is wrong with Rees courses, I figure they could all be boiled down to this:  His bunkers are too big, too big for the amount of shape they have, too big and dwarf the greens instead of visually enhancing them.  His father and brother have similar problems scale wise.  At least IMHO.

[ward peyronnin]

Sorry i mistakenly posted this on a different thread

I will qualify this addition to the RSJ debate by saying that I did not care for much of what I saw on this AAC course from the broadcast.

One specific detail, for me, reveals that his design focus seems generally flawed. The margins of those very conspicuous bunkers were horribly artificial with sine curve stretches between silly looking slender grass lobes. Just altogether looking like something a grade schooler might draw to make things look cool. How can a site for a major be taken seriously with this look within your vision all the time?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ward,

While I am not a huge fan of the AAC bunkers, it could be said that to some people, the "chunked look" so favored here looks artificial to their eyes, just as the smooth saucers at Augusta look artificial to others, etc.

We need to face facts, but in the red clay of Atlanta, sand bunkers aren't natural.  You can debate what style to put in there, but they are abstract pieces of art, nothing more.  As I said above, I suspect that the visual problem, if you have one, is that they simply have too little detail shape for their size, as compared to what have become the "favored" styles of abstract art these days.

[ward peyronnin]

Jeff

I cite the great landscape architect. Russel Page, who laid down not just principles of design in The Education of a Gardener but a philosophy with almost spiritual qualities that guided his hand upon the earth.

One  of these principles involved how a path should be laid out; not with multiple looping turns that cluttered ones perspective but sweeping curves that end at a termination whether that be a bend around a point or an unrevealed bordering part of the garden. Those busy, busy bunker edges, the ones i can still see in my mind that resembled  a rope someone cracked to make it ripple and the out of scale skinney little lobes are just bad design and an increased  maintanence issue as well. I know a minor point but telling for me.
Chunked look is not what i am picking up on.. i love Cuscowilla's bunkers and they are just as Georgian as the AAC.

Face it , this looks like the virtual golf course that many of us on this site downplay....the water hazard margins,,, the chute like fairways.... would look great on what is it Tiger Woods 2010. And this is an example for other clubs similarly to what Augusta has become since it is now a major venue

[Terry Lavin]

How many courses has Mickelson designed?

How many professional tournaments have been played on Mickelson courses?

How many majors have been played on Mickelson courses?

How many courses has Rees Jones designed?

How many professional tournaments have been played on Jones courses?

How many majors have been played on Jones courses?

Sorry for the pedantic exercise, but the bottom line is that Mickelson has very little credibilty in attacking Rees Jones on anything related to golf course architecture.  Sure, he's a great player, but that doesn't mean that he is a great architect.  Furthermore, not being a busy architect, he has virtually no experience in dealing with owners' demands and expectations.  Say what you will about Jones' designs, he generally does a pretty good job of delivering the product that his customers want.  Not many owners would develop a course with no thought to having professional golf and then hire Jones and ask him to build something that would test the very best in the game.  The folks at AAC wanted a course that would be tough enough to really challenge the pros.  If they didn't like it because it was too tough, that's too bad for the players.  Keegan Bradley didn't mind that it was too tough.

And now he's got the trophy.

[Jerry Kluger]

Terry: How many courses have been designed by those who we recognize as gca experts - do you think that Ran can intelligently critique a course design, how about Tom Doak when he wrote the CG - just because you don't design courses doesn't mean that you have no credibility in when you critique a course.  Mickelson gave the opinion that AAC is an extremely difficult course that is not member friendly - what do you disagree with in that statement?  I am in agreement with most on this site that every course that I can think of which hosted a major championship in the US did not become a better member's course after the event. I wouldn't want to play AAC on a regular basis without an unlimited supply of free golf balls.

[David Kelly]

Instead of  "frank commentary on golf course architecture" what we too often get nowadays on here is just excuses for mediocre or bad golf architecture.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()