Rees Jones Originals vs. Redesigns

[Chris Hervochon]

Just got back from a trip to the Golden Horseshoe.  The Gold course is an RTJ original, redone by Rees a few years ago.  The Green is a Rees Jones original.  Both are on similar pieces of property.  Did not like the Green, especially the "cathedral" type holes with the containment mounding.  Thought the Gold was a sweet track though.  Does anybody have any opinions?

[Paul Richards]

Must say I am a much bigger fan of his redesigns (East
Lake and Bethpage) over his originals (Burnt Pine and Haig
Point, amongst others).

[jim_lewis]

I have always enjoyed the Golden Horsehoe course, especially the par threes. I saw the Green course for the first time about 3 months ago. I had been told not to expect much, but it was still the single most disappointing course I saw in 2001. For those who like to criticize Rees, this course offers the finest collection of ammunition I have seen.

[Matt_Ward]

Just a previous point I've made countless times -- the most recent Rees Jones designs are his finest work. I urge people if they can gain access to Olde Kinderhook (Albany, NY), Nantucket and The Bridge, to name just three.

I've heard a number of good things about Black Lake in MI and Ocean Forest in GA.

Do not simply judge an architect by previous work unless you can see some examples of his most recent work. People have a tendency to apply labels and sometimes it's very possible for these labels to remain in place when the facts argue otherwise.

[jim_lewis]

Matt:

I agree completely with your point that it is wrong to judge an architect's body of work based on just a few courses. You seem to suggest that the best measure of an architect (or Rees, at least) is his "recent" work. Just how recent do you feel a course needs to be to be considered indicative of his work?  I guess Rees is close to 60 years old now. Sandpines and Golden Horsehoe-Green were both built in the past decade. Are they not recent enough to be included when commenting on Rees? Are you really meaning to suggest that the fairest way to judge an architect is to consider his #best" work, which in Rees's case seems to be his latest?

On the other hand, it has been suggested on this DG in the past that some architects' best work was among their earliest.
For example, many would argue that The Golf Club and Harbour Town are two of Dye's best. Same with Nicklaus and Muifield Village. Certainly, Caledonia (his first) is the best Strantz course I've seen.

My point (poorly made) is that I don't care whether a course is an architect's first, last, or only.  I intend to judge courses one at time and avoid generalizations about the architect. Most architects who have designed many courses have done some excellent work and have also done some they would prefer be forgotten. Haven't we all!

Reminds me of the old story about the two blind men who were asked to grab hold of an elephant and then describe it.
One who grabbed the tail said it was a long skinny thing. The other, who grabbed the torso, said it was big round thing.  It just depends on which course you happen to play.

[Matt B]

New here, I'm sure it's been covered a thousand times, but could someone give me the reader's digest version of why it was necessary for Rees to 'redesign' a grand old course like Bethpage?...as opposed to 'restore'.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim Lewis,

Your points are well taken.  Each course is different.  The record of each architect is different.  Some architects did their best work early on.  Some got better with practice.  And so on.

Matt Ward apparently believes Rees Jones is an example of an architect who:

a) didn't produce especially good work early in his career

b) but lately is producing some good stuff

Matt may be right on one or both counts, none of which necessarily contradict your fine points.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

With all due respect I have no problem with anyone judging Rees Jones or Fazio or Dye's work based on their past designs or most their recent work or by individual course or anyway they wish, they are all legitimate subjects for analysis after all they put their name on those designs. Rees Jones has certainly changed his style of late and oerhapos it is better than his prior work, but remains to be seen if it is any good. I'll take Matt's opinion as Matt's opinion, I disagree with his assessment of Nantucket and others have expresssed less the favorable views of The Bridge, time will tell if these courses are favorably judged.  If you disagree with someone's opinion disagree with it, don't tell them how or when or what they must do when judging an architect. Afterall this is a discussion group.

[Matt_Ward]

My only point is that people should look at courses first and designers second. Too many times people automatically associate a label to a particular architect from designs that have taken place years ago. And that label becomes what people then associate with all of their portfolio.

So what happens?

You get people who when they hear the name of a particular architect jump to the following statement -- "oh, this must be a so and so type course" and therefore in many ways are pre-disposed to believe if you seen one "so and so" course then they must be all the same.

This can happen to designers who are not in style as well as those who are favored. You can tell this by the gushing praise automatically given to some architects by quite a few posters on GCA simply because they follow the "classic" school of design -- whatever that is?

I say look at the course first and foremost -- look for the name of the person second.

The people who have expressed disfavor with The Bridge for the most part have NEVER played the course. I don't give maximum credence to people who have not played a course but somehow can chime in with an "opinion." As far as Nantucket is concerned I know there is split feelings but I like the course and believe it is different from other past Rees courses. Ditto Olde Kinderhook.

Jim Lewis:

Appreciate your comments. I go by each and every course that I see and I have seen plenty of Rees Jones courses minus Ocean Forest (GA) and Oxfordshire in England. Clearly, Rees used a style in his earlier designs and including Sandpines, among a few others, which really did not go over at all with many -- myself included. The containment mounding and predictability in the design of the greens really looked like a pro forma style.

In the last 3-4 years I believe he has begun to modify, if not completely alter his style and as a consequence favor no easily discernable pattern. That's just my opinion in looking at the three courses I just mentioned.

Again, I'm not here to promote Rees Jones or any other architect -- I just wish people would look at the courses and focus less on the person. Usually, when it's reversed the pre-existing placement of labels can easily cloud the judgement of those from doing a fair assessment of that respective course.

I think when you check the body of work over a prolonged period of time you can see what, of any, changes have been incorporated. Too many people see just 3-4 courses in a quick snapshot from 7-10 years ago and affix a label that really may not be appropriate when compared to a architect's most recent designs. Clearly, architects can go through cycles of poor, medium and superb efforts.

Just my opinion for what it's worth. Hope this helps ...

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
I give more credit to the people on this site. I don't believe they mindless idiots who approach every course with preconceived blindness or easily swayed by what I say or what you say. I think that the great majority judge each course on its merits, old or new, Rees Jones or Donald Ross. Unlike others who get caught up in clubhouses and maintenance, this group has a whole is focused on architecture.

[GeoffreyC]

Matt

I see a definite change in Rees' style over the past 7-8 years especially with regard to aesthetics.  They all can play tough as nails but there is a distinct change from to use Mike Cirba's term a concave course laid down on the land to a convex more naturally integrated into the surrounding land style of course.

I see this progression from say Fiddlers Elbow Forest Course in NJ to a slightly less overshaped Huntsville and then to a natural Ocean Forest.  None are necessarily more difficult to play then the other and there are some wonderful features in all three courses but OF is more of a joy to play, a better walk in the park. I think the big difference is in the periphery of the golf course much more then the actual playing area.

Would you agree with this assessment?  

[Matt_Ward]

GeoffreyC:

Your point is well taken.

I think the key to understanding any architect is to see his body of work in toto and rigorously analyze any common themes or patterns. I know I've seen much of his work minus the exceptions already mentioned. Clearly, in my mind, there have been changes although from time to time you get a turkey like Tattersall in the Phillie area.

I believe within the last few years Rees has skillfully done this himself by being cognizant of the legitimate criticisms that have been put forward (I also hasten to add that there are plenty of people who continue to affix "labels" and will forever keep these same "labels" in place no matter what is done by the architect). In my opinion, Rees is aware that the forumlistic manner of his earlier designs were nothing more than repetitive "brands" that had become really tired in their overall presentation.

I see his most recent designs (Nantucket / Tom MacWood notwithstanding; The Bridge; Olde Kinderhood) as exciting challenges for all types of players and I see the manner in his shaping of holes is far from the containment mounding you see in such past designs as Atlantic Club, to name just one noteworthy effort. I also believe his green designs have been improved and are not framed by the predictable bunkering pattern that simply was as flat as a three-day opened bottle of Coca Cola -- although I tend to agree that his effort at Cascata (NV) seems to have some of these issues as mentioned by a previous contributor on a different thread.

I have not played Ocean Forest yet, but considering the comments you and BillV have made dealing with the course I believe my assessment of his "new look" is something that clearly is for the better and I hope is continued with each new design he brings forward.

We shall see ...

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
Don't you think it is equally or more important who is seeing the work in toto or doing the evaluating? You and I disagree about Nantucket, in my mind the architect was presented with a unique site and wonderful opportunity, yet he chose to create/dictate a design that could have been built in Florida, Las Vegas, or central Ohio -- he ignored the land.

This example does not jive with your stated method of placing 50% of your evalutation on the land or with my idea of great design maximizing a sites natural attributes -- and makes me wonder for example what I might find at The Bridge when I eventually get there. Hypothetically, if your tastes are completely different than my own or if you are simply an incompentent evaluator, all the experience in the world is not going to be useful. That is one of the reasons why I disagree with you telling anyone how, what or under what circumstances they must evaluate architects work -- after all this is a discusion group.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt B,

What exactly did Rees REDESIGN at Bethpage, and what exactly did he RESTORE ?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Let's get this straight okay.

You and I see Nantucket in two different ways. You don't like it and I could easily claim you are an "incompetent evaluator" as you seem to be saying about me. I don't lob insults sir.

I've seen The Bridge and I loved it -- no doubt about it. When you play it Tom, tell me what you think. Yes, I take great umbrage at people who say this and that about The Bridge but have not played the course. How believable can those people be?

Yes, I do see land as being an important ingredient, and, in my opinion, the land for Nantucket is well done and I believe Rees did a stellar job. We can beat this back and forth until the cows come home. I know I've seen quite a few of Rees Jones designs over a long span of time to make my own conclusions. I don't know how many of his courses you have seen for you to tell me I don't know what I am talking about. Please provide some sort of details -- is Nantucket the only Rees Jones course you've played???

Tom, people can discuss all they want about anything in question -- they add to their credibility when they have done the due diligence in actually playing the courses in question. That's my opinion -- pure and simple.

I've followed the discussion on GCA concerning certain architects, Rees among them, and more often than not you get some people chining in with an opinion based on what someone told them or what they gleaned from photos. That fails the test in actually playing the course. As a result people then "label" an architect and that same "label" becomes the starting point irrespective of what new designs elements he may bring to future projects. I credit BillV and GeoffreyC in taking the time to see the latest designs of Rees and deciding for themselves if he actually has done some different things with his newest designs. I call that doing one's homework!

Tom, you and I may only agree we are on the planet earth. You have no hestitation taking me to task on any point I raise, real or small -- fair enough, just leave out the personalized elements. When you're points are valid I've said so. I never see you say the same thing in return. I guess we are in fundamental disagreement 100 percent of the time. So be it.

But, I will without hestitation counter trash talk against an architect when people have not actually seen or played the courses with an emphasis more so on playing. I'm sure you will parse some element of what I just said to make some "compelling" counterpoint.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
My point exactly! You may see things one way and I may see things another way, but who cares neither one of us is the guru of golf analysis, we are but two men with a certain viewpoint. I object to you or anyone else telling someone that their viewpoint is not valid because they haven't seen as many courses as you feel is neccessary -- they very well may have skills of analysis greater than either one us. Simply playing a great number of courses does produce intelligent analysis, and there is more to due diligence than playing a great number of golf courses.

If someone wants to judge Rees Jones or Pete Dye or Alister MacKenzie based one course, five courses or 100 courses feel free after all this is a discussion group.  If they want to judge their early work, the later work or the entire portfolio go ahead. Their view is as valid as yours or mind. If they want to discuss what they see in photo, go ahead (and by the way not single person passed judgement/evaluated the golf course-The Bridge who did not play it).

Did I say you were an incompetitent evaluator? Re-read my post, I don't believe I did.

The land for Nantucket is well done. Unfortunately it should have been medium rare. Of Rees's courses I've also played Talamore, CC of Hilton Head, Currituck, Oyster Reef and another course that we strongly disagree upon Pinehurst #7. There may be more, but for some reason I have difficulty remembering. But who cares what courses I've played, you won't find my proclamation of Rees Jones entire career here or anywhere else. The only person who concistently discusses/anlysizes Rees's entire career is yourself. And who cares if some one analyzes a photo, every architect past and present has photos analyzed, why is Rees the only one that is off limits for this practice. It isn't like anyone is passing judgement on entire design via a photo -- it is a harmless practice that can be very interesting. And what is with this goofy idea that Rees is pumled by heresay, no one is judging Rees by what someone told them, his courses speek for themselves -- that is a poor excuse, as if he is for some reason he is singled out by some gosip scheme. Ironically I don't think I even mentioned his work on this thread -- my objection was you telling others what they can and can not do/evaluate -- Rees should hire you as his PR representative.

[BillV]

Pinehurst #2 restoration- excellent

Congressional re-design, neutering of some classic quirliness

Sea Island re-design, very safe and commercial

Evolution of Original design getting better and better all the time.  As Geoffrey posted above, Fiddler's Elbow-Forest was surprisingly good despite an abysmally bad routing.  The horrible character of the mounds at Huntsville really detracts from a fine oglf course.  Ocean Forest if improved upon at the Bridge may make truly outstanding.  That's one of my earliest must sees for next year.

Rees is clearly in evolution for the better.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I would agree with you, save one statement.

" It isn't like anyone is passing judgement on his entire design  via a photo"

In the past, this was the case, and I objected to it as unfair.
It was tantamount to judging a film by looking at but one frame without ever having seen the entire film.  Many ripped his courses, based on a photo analysis without ever having played the course, and I thought that was unfair.

Conversely, others viewed photos of a course they never played and decreed it royalty, despite never having seen it, and... it appeared this was done to courses designed by architects who enjoyed "most favored nation" status on this site.

I do think that process or trend has diminished and is heading toward extinction, and I think more participants have concluded that the proof is ultimately in the tasting of the pudding, which is a sign of progress.

Differing points of view continue to be a healthy source of debate.  What is difficult to debate, and what should be differentiated are tastes, styles and preferences.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I've been following this site for a while and do not recall a single incedent of someone judging an entire golf course, pro or con by a single photo. Which course was judged in total by a single photo or photos?

It seems to me that a handful of Rees fans mistake a critical analysis of a photograph, positive or negative, with judging an entire course. Why is it that Rees seems to be the only architect who suffers from such unfair criticism and why is he the only architect whose supporters are always up and in arms about this practice -- might the criticism actually be fair and accurate?  Do you think it is fluke or perhaps do his design practices (illustrated in photos) actually deserve critical comments?

Why have you posted the photos of Boca Rio?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom  MacWood,

Atlantic and Nantucket

I can't account for why other people do things,
perhaps jealousy, perhaps differences in style preference..

I sent Photos to Tommy Naccarato in an email discussion, and he chose to post them.
Perhaps you should ask him why he chose to do so.

Many people had asked me to describe the golf course and its holes in detail and, unfortunately, I just don't have Tom Paul's appetite for voluminous posts, so Tommy's posting served a valueable purpose and satisfied many requests.

I think the GREAT number of photos begins to give you a flavor of the golf course, especially when combined with posts of individuals who have played it, like Geoff Childs, Jim Lewis, and Jerry Kluger.  Since I am clearly too close to the situation, and biased, I have tried to add details about features and have tried to avoid comments assessing the course, other then in refuting erroneous or errant posts.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
If I'm not mistaken you posted pictures of Atlantic and Nantucket under a thread 'There once was golf course from Nantucket' and you specifically asked for comments. Didn't you solicit comments on that thread? You were understandibly quite surprised and upset that the majority of responses were negative, but no one who had not played the courses judged the courses in the entirety. In my mind there is difference between commenting on a photo (especially when you are asked to comment) and judging an entire course -- you must see it differently. What I find humorous is that you vigorously defended both Nantcuket and later the Bridge even though you had never played either course.  

I was under the assumption that you asked Tommy to post the photos of BR, I was just curious if you did so to spark discussion on the course.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

As with many of us, time has impaired your memory.

I was not the one who posted "there once was a course from Nantucket", nor did I seek opinions on the course in that post, someone else did.  Nor did I vigorously defend it.  

What I objected to was people making disparaging comments about Rees, and the course when they had never seen or played Nantucket or Atlantic.

My posting was of two pictures, the 11th at Atlantic, and another hole at Nantucket.

You're also drinking too much egg nog with additives.
 
I never vigorously defended Nantucket or The Bridge, only the critical negative comments about them from people who had never seen or played the topical Rees courses, including yourself at Atlantic.

Regarding Boca Rio, I'd be happy to discuss the course from a playability perspective with Geoff Childs, Jim Lewis, Jerry Kluger or anyone else who has played it.  I'm also willing to discuss any feature, or issue, construction or environmental that anyone would like to address with respect to the project and golf course.  

Just look at it as an opportunity to see the problems/barriers/impediments to golf course work in Florida in the 90's, combined with some insight into club politics involving course changes, OR, just a plain old FYI.

P.S.  Lay off the egg nog  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Perhaps my memory is shot -- my mind gets very foggy playing and discussing Rees Jones courses. Did you not post pictures of Nantucket and Atlantic - and solicit comments?

I had no idea that you only wanted comments regarding the photos from those who had played the courses--even though you had not? Maybe you should decline from defending courses you have never played. It is all so confusing, when can I comment and when can't I, do I need to refrain from all negatives and state only positives, are these simply rules for Rees and all's fair with everyone else?

From what I understand you recieve supportive e-mails from Rees after defending his designs on this site (some you've played and some you have not), do you think your relationship with Rees has clouded your already curious perspective? At least I have an excuse for my sometimes dubious views -- egg nog.

In the future you need to specify that you will no accept negative comments regarding photos of Rees courses, especially if that person has never played the course. If you were more specific we wouldn't have this problem -- that way you will happy, I will be happy and most importantly Rees will be happy.  Please lay down the guide lines so that we can all avoid these difficulties in the future. We will call them "Mucci's rules on photographic commentary and in particular photographs of Rees Jones' golf courses."

What's that old saying what's good for the goose.....

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Perhaps my memory is shot -- my mind gets very foggy playing and discussing Rees Jones courses. Did you not post pictures of Nantucket and Atlantic - and solicit comments?

I had no idea that you only wanted comments regarding the photos from those who had played the courses--even though you had not? Maybe you should decline from defending courses you have never played. It is all so confusing, when can I comment and when can't I, do I need to refrain from all negatives and state only positives, are these simply rules for Rees and all's fair with everyone else?

From what I understand you recieve supportive e-mails from Rees after defending his designs on this site (some you've played and some you have not), do you think your relationship with Rees has clouded your already curious perspective? At least I have an excuse for my sometimes dubious views -- egg nog.

In the future you need to specify that you will no accept negative comments regarding photos of Rees courses, especially if that person has never played the course. If you were more specific we wouldn't have this problem -- that way you will happy, I will be happy and most importantly Rees will be happy.  Please lay down the guide lines so that we can all avoid these difficulties in the future. We will call them "Mucci's rules on photographic commentary and in particular photographs of Rees Jones' golf courses."

What's that old saying what's good for the goose.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I think you have a difficult time dealing with the facts.

And, some statements you make are blatant lies.

For example, and for the record, I have never received an email from Rees Jones in my life.  

Would you please cite your source for another one of your off the wall false allegations ?

This is typical of some of your positions, absolutely void of the facts.

I never defended a course I never played.  Could you cite a specific example of another one of your false allegations ?

Your reading comprehension is flawed as well.

I clearly said I would be happy to discuss Boca Rio's PLAYABILITY with three individuals or anyone else who had played it.  How can one discuss a course's playability when one has never played it.  Oh I forgot, you did that at Atlantic, and were also an expert on the site before and after the golf course was built, without ever having seen it.

You and anyone else can comment on any photo you want, but as Tom Doak said on this site, you have to see and/or play the course to credibly evaluate the course.

I don't think my long term friendship with Rees clouds my mind any more than your long term friendship with your wife clouds your mind on household or domestic matters.  

Tom, it's rather simple, that's why I'm puzzled you can't figure it out.  Then again, if you're saying that you possess the talent, the genius, to look at a photo, or several photos, and from those photos, evaluate the entire golf course, including its playability, you're simply too advanced for this site, and should join Kreskin on his new combination mentalist-golf course analyst site.

I hope, for your sake, that you're just playing dumb, and not serious about your ability to discern from a few photos, everything about a golf course, including wind direction. turf conditions, and overall playability.

I defended Rees from unfair attacks, personal and professional,
including some from you.  I would do so for any architect who was unfairly set upon.  Conversely, you choose to ignore and are a part of a bias on this site.  You never offered one criticism of an individual who made the outlandish statement that Rees's designs don't make you think.  Nor did you jump at pronouncements that a course not even completed and open for play was going to be one of the best ever, made by individuals who have neither seen the site or played the course, with their opinion weighted by the fact that the architects involved are the darlings of some on this site.

So I think you understand the rules of fairness, you just choose not to play by them, and as I've said before,
I understand !