[T_MacWood]

Pat
Since we are going to dig up old statements I made (I'm not sure what that has to do with mulitple tees), and since you are well known to demand "standards of accuracy and honesty", I thought maybe we should try to get exactly what I said accurate (and honest).  

I said "Rees has remodeled a lot of courses by a lot of architects - Tillinghast (Bethpage, Baltusrol, Ridgewood, Quaker Ridge), Travis (Equinox, Hollywood), psuedo-MacK (Monterey, Lake Merced), Ross (East Lake), Flynn (CC of Va) and his father (Congressional, Hazeltine). The common result is that he has left his distinctive mark on all of them." You then focused your attention on the changes Rees made to Baltusrol, ignoring the other courses. Eventually in a heated exchange you wrote:

 "REES JONES HAS NEVER TOUCHED THOSE GREENS.

Let me repeat that in case you've missed it.

REES JONES HAS NEVER TOUCHED THE 9TH, 10TH OR 14TH GREENS."

Obviously you felt quite strongly about the subject (busting out the CAPS).  I then quoted Rees directly, where he explained the changes he made to those greens and other changes he made to the course prior to one of the Opens (including new bunkers and tees). I guess we did bring it back to tees.
I was under the impression you liked Rees's work (his distinctive style). If you like his work why to object my saying he left his distinctive mark (do you think his style generally melds well)?  MacKenzie left his distinctive mark at Pebble Beach. Travis left his distinctive mark at Columbia. Trent Jones left his distinctive mark at Oakland Hills. Is there something objectionable about this phrase?


If you're looking for the specific thread here is one of the mothers of all pissing contests (in it Pat raises points of legitimate architectural interest with the strength of five men):
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=128

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I said "Rees has remodeled a lot of courses by a lot of architects - Tillinghast (Bethpage, Baltusrol, Ridgewood, Quaker Ridge), Travis (Equinox, Hollywood), psuedo-MacK (Monterey, Lake Merced), Ross (East Lake), Flynn (CC of Va) and his father (Congressional, Hazeltine). The common result is that he has left his distinctive mark on all of them."

You then focused your attention on the changes Rees made to Baltusrol, ignoring the other courses.

Tom, your quote above is quite clear.

You said that Rees Jones left his distinctive marks on Baltusrol.

I asked you, what were his distinctive marks, and where did he leave them at Baltusrol.  You have never answered that question, choosing instead to list the slight expansion of three greens through the mowing of their fringes.

You also admited that you've never seen or played Baltusrol.
Perhaps, in your attempt to disparage Rees you should have done your homework on Baltusrol before making your broad brush comments, or excluded it from your statement.

I ask you again, what are Rees's distinctive marks ?
And, where has he left them at Baltusrol ?
How do the 9th, 10th and 14th greens bear his distinctive marks, as you claim ?

If you're going to make a claim about a golf course you've never seen, I think you have an obligation to be truthful and accurate, and to be able to substantiate your claim when questioned.

If you could answer the above three questions I'd appreciate it.  If you can't, then you should retract your statement about Baltusrol.  The choice is yours.

[T_MacWood]

Rees Jones:
" Remodeling Baltusrol was a special opportunity for me....We marked every bunker edge....In 1954 my father added a new tee to the right of the existing one, creating the dogleg. We built a new fairway bunker on the right....We added a third bunker to the left of the fairway on the 374-yard eighth."

Pat
Re-read the entire thread....it make for exhilirating reading. I especially like the part where you break out the all CAPS. It is clear what new features Rees added...he clearly explains what he did (I believe there is also a link to an earial). Maybe your definition of leaving your mark does not include adding new bunkers.

Why do you constantly re-hash these old threads and these weak examples of bias. You claimed that Rees never touched the greens...if anyone should be held accountable for inaccurate statements its you...but I have no desire to re-hash your mistakes because we all make mistakes. Move on.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I'll repeat it, Rees Jones never touched those greens.
There was no excavation or introduction of dirt or materials.  

Through maintainance practices, over time, under the supervision of Joe Flaherty, the fringes in limited areas were mowed to green height.  So tell me, where are Rees's distinctive marks on those greens ??

On the bunker added to the 8th hole, what are Rees's distinctive marks, and where do they appear on that bunker ?

With regard to the bunker lines, what are Rees's distinctive marks and where do they appear on those bunkers ?

Since when is adding features equivalent to leaving distinctive marks

You made the statement, never having seen the golf course pre and post Rees's work, and when called to identify Rees's distinctive marks, and where he left them, you can't do it.

I ask you again, what are Rees's distinctive marks ?
Where do they appear on the 9th, 10th and 14th green ?
Where do they appear on the bunker on # 8 ?
Where do they appear throughout the golf course ?
Can you specifically identify them,

OR

Would you care to retract your statement regarding Baltusrol ?

[George Pazin]

He is indefatigable in trying to get people to stick to the issues at hand which can be very uncomfortable to many contributors who prefer to score points rather than rationally discuss the points at hand.

This is actually kind of funny. If you define issues as questioning posters motivations & biases ad nauseum, then I guess I agree. I'd prefer to see actual discussion of substantive content, but I guess I'm biased.

He demands standards of accuracy and honesty which are perhaps not feasible for (or attractive in) a free-wheeling medium such as this.

He searches quixotically (sp?) for accuracy & honesty in a completely subjective arena.

The logic of not pointing out every conceivable mistake made on every course implying some sort of bias is so flawed that if it were adopted by mankind some 5 centuries ago we never would have made it out of the dark ages. When coupled with an insistence of playing every course in every conceivable weather pattern (which is violated by every poster on this site) this is a formula for paralysis.

He deserves much better than the mindless opprobrium which is often laid upon him, usually by those who have little of substance to contribute to our conversations.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. But you know what they say about people in glass houses....

I'm going to go way out on a limb & say that if this thread had been titled "Multiple tees at Bandon" & proceeded to simply examine how multiple tees at Bandon work or don't work, the stated objective of discussing this situation would have stood a much better chance of being accomplished. As it stands, we have yet another thread where the focus has been on posters & not on content. More insanity.

If you think Patrick starts more substantive threads than any other 5 contributors, you need to look at more threads, especially Paul Turner's. Quantity does not automatically trump quality.

[T_MacWood]

Through maintainance practices, over time, under the supervision of Joe Flaherty, the fringes in limited areas were mowed to green height.  So tell me, where are Rees's distinctive marks on those greens ?? Rees explained that he inlarged some of the greens to create new pin positions and bring bunkers into play (he did the same thing at Bethpage)...no mention of maintainance practices...I'll take your word for it.

On the bunker added to the 8th hole, what are Rees's distinctive marks, and where do they appear on that bunker?Was the bunker there prior to Rees building it...if not he left his mark...no? Why no questions about the bunkering at the 7th hole?

With regard to the bunker lines, what are Rees's distinctive marks and where do they appear on those bunkers ? Aren't you the same guy who couldn't see his distinctive lines at Hollywood, Bethpage, Ridgewood, Quaker Ridge?...some people see'm some people don't....no matter.

Since when is adding features equivalent to leaving distinctive marks.Its just one man's opinion, one man's choice of words...you are free to disagree or use another words...Rees preferred "remodeling"...to each his own..  

You made the statement, never having seen the golf course pre and post Rees's work, and when called to identify Rees's distinctive marks, and where he left them, you can't do it. I'm still not clear why you object to Rees leaving his mark...why is this such a bad thing in your eyes, don't you like his architecture?

Move along....why the need to rehash....why not agree to disagree and spare GCA....lets get back to all those 'points of architectural interest'.  

[ForkaB]

George

Paul Turner mostly unearths pictures of hidden gems (mostly Colt, mostly England) and shares them with us.  I think this is great and I fully enjoy and support these efforts.  I'll still take Pat at 5-1 vs. Paul vis a vis the posting of substantive GCA issues, however.

PS--we were well out of the Dark Ages 5 centuries ago--that period was was called the "Renaissance".....

Pat and Tom

Are there multiple tees at Baltusrol (evidenced either by your being there or looking at pictures of and words about the place)?  If so, are they (or our interpretation of them) evidence "BIAS?"  If not, why not move the cat fight onto another thread?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Let's stick with Baltusrol and not try to divert attention to other courses.

The right side fairway bunker on # 7 was added many years ago and integrated beautifully with the existing bunkers.

"DISTINCT" means:

1  Distinguishable to the eye or mind as descrete
2  Readily perceptable to the senses or mind,
    presenting a clear unmistakable impression
3  Notably decorated
4  Notable

So when you say he left his distinctive marks all over the golf course, why can't you identify them and tell us exactly where on the golf course these distinctive marks exist.

My problem with your statement/s is that you've had a history of Rees bashing, starting at Atlantic, a site that you've never seen, to many other courses.

Had your criticism of Baltusrol been along factual and specific lines, I would accept it.  

As a fabricated example, if you said,

(I don't like the fairway bunkers on # 8 at Baltusrol because, rather than create the bunker below grade level, Rees chose to create an above ground fill pad and fit the bunkers into that fill pad, creating bunkers that look nothing like the existing bunkers on the golf course, the bunkers are totally out of context)

That would be a valid opinion, based on your experience and your sense of architecture and aesthetics.

If the above example were true, and it isn't, perhaps there might be mitigating circumstances for that type of bunker design and construction, such as drainage or a desire for visibility, but even if there wasn't any reason for designing and building the bunker as described, you would have a valid point, and I would agree with you.

But, to make a blanket, negative statement about Rees leaving his distinctive marks on Baltusrol when you've never seen the golf course and can't personally identify and locate the distinctive marks you reference is irresponsible, not fair and damaging to Rees.

[Michael Dugger]

damaging?

damaging you say?

It's nothing that can't be fixed with some more gloss from the USGA about the Rees the "Open Doctor"

Nothing that a few color ads in Links won't repair.

Nothing that will affect the decision making of those who like his "style"

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

MDugger,

Have you seen and played Baltusrol, The Country Club or Bethpage Black ?

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Forrest,

Let's first be clear on what I mean by "one tee set".

I don't mean one tee deck.  Have as many tee decks (ie. a raised flat area of tightly mown grass) as you'd like.

I also don't mean "one starting point".  Move the tee markers around each day to reduce wear.  Move them onto other tee decks to provide different distances and angles of play, for variety.

What I mean is that you don't NEED gold, blue, white, green and red tee markers.  Just one marker could suffice.

Each day, the marker is located at one spot and everyone (man, woman and child, hacker and tiger alike) tees off from that one location.  The next day, the marker is relocated (if necessary/desired) and everyone tees off from there.

But that would require a radically different approach in the way architects design golf courses, and a radically different outlook in the way golfers see their scores.

The classic way of designing, say, 400-yard, dogleg-left par four, would be something like a carry bunker 250 yards from the back tee on the inside, and another green-side bunker front-right.

But for Joe Q, if he played the back tee, the fairway bunker is not in play.  He can't reach it off the tee.  So we add a middle tee, making the hole 360 yards. And Jane Doe, from that back tee, has no chance of reaching either the bunker or the green in two.  What's the fun in hitting Driver - 4 wood - 7 iron all day?  So we put a forward tee at 300 yards.  (Then of course we'd put the forward tee to the right of centre, taking the fairway bunker out of play, thus nulifying somewhat the idea of forward tees, but that's another story...)

But what if Joe Q plays from the back tee.  For him, with a 200 yard drive, it's almost a three shooter.  So design the hole as a gambling "reachable par five" for him.  Honestly, that front-right bunker, while following the credos of traditional strategic architecture for the scratch golfer, really isn't in play if Mr. Scratch is coming in with a wedge.  So put the bunker front left instead.  It still requires Mr. Scratch to hit a solid approach for his birdie, but now Joe Q must decide whether or not cutting the corner is really going to make it easy for him to reach the green.  Maybe the long way 'round will give him a better angle in?

And what about Jane Doe?  She hit a good drive and has probably 250 to the green.  Now put a bunker short right about 100 yards from the green.  She now has to flirt with that one to give herself an easy third.  And if Joe Q ever lets his drive leak too far right of the tee, he's also got that bunker to worry about if his second isn't caught flush.  Mr. Scratch might wonder what the heck a bunker is doing 75 yards from the green, but who cares?  

It's a great idea (IMHO), but it'd never work.  It would screw up people's compartimentalized one-track-mind thinking about "par".

oh well...  


Patrick,

Yes, TOC has multiple tee decks.

But they aren't necessary.  Most (99%) of people play the white (medal) tee anyway, scratch golfer and weekend hacker alike.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy Glenn,

Your proposal for one set of tees would require a change in the culture of golf, before it could be adopted, and I don't see that happening in the near or distant future.

I think that the one size fits all concept is a fantasy in designing a golf course today.

Tell me how you would handle the cry of inequity and the ability to satisfy the challenge and the fun for both players when a short hitting senior plays a match against a scratch player from the same tees ?

How long would you make your single tee golf course ?

I don't think the idea sounds good on paper, let alone in the field, but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Your proposal for one set of tees would require a change in the culture of golf, before it could be adopted, and I don't see that happening in the near or distant future.

 

You're right, it probably would.  And I don't see it happening anytime soon either.  But so what?

I think that the one size fits all concept is a fantasy in designing a golf course today.

Yes, but so was flying to the moon, at one point.  I'm not one to shy away from something simply because "that's not the way it done".

Tell me how you would handle the cry of inequity and the ability to satisfy the challenge and the fun for both players when a short hitting senior plays a match against a scratch player from the same tees ?

The handicap system.

How long would you make your single tee golf course?

Whatever fits the land.

I don't think the idea sounds good on paper, let alone in the field, but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

So could I.  But I'll never know is by giving up.

[JakaB]

Why don't you have one set of tees and multiple greens.  No matter where your talent level chooses to place your drive you will have an opportunity to have a fair and happy day.

[RJ_Daley]

Barney, that is an interesting concept.  Here in Green Bay we have nine holes of a 27 routing where there are double greens.  But, they weren't really designed or placed in the concept you are speaking of or this discussion which is centered around - one set of tees.  That course has up to 5-6 sets of tees.  But, dual or overlarge greens with pins cleverly placed for near and far would bring the disparity of man-woman, senior-young buck into some kind of parity.  I'd hate to pay to maintain that much green space however...

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

Doesn't one of the courses at Desert Mountain have two (2) sets of pins on each green.

Thus golfers "could" choose their tees and their pins.

If multiple tees didn't work, they'd be abandoned.

What I find odd is that many individuals and golf clubs recommend that golfers play from tees commensurate with their abilities, yet there appears to be a rejection on the multiple tee theory by some on this site.

You can't have it both ways, can you ?  

[RJ_Daley]

excuse if this has already been said, since I didn't read all the back and forth banter of the thread.  However, one course I can think of that works for one set of tees only is #2 at Medinah, the women's course.   It actually has two sets of tees, but that is a course of some 5500 yards where one set would work where like Jeremy says, you only put out one set of markers or blocks each day.  Come to think of it, #3 the brutish one would work where only one set of markers were put out each day, and you better by a gorilla to tackle it.  Otherwise, go play #1 where the distance demands are moderate.

[JakaB]

Pat,

I must admit that I have it both ways and take it from all sides.  I love multiple tees but see a problem with them when the superintendant does not use his imagination in the course set up....I once complained about this and recommended that every morning the super weigh the combination of factors such as wind, rain and previous set ups in determining a varied and interesting ever changing set-up.   The pro simply suggested I just play from wherever it makes me happy and ignore the tees as where they are placed....having it both ways and taking it from all sides..baby.  Its a fair and happy life for me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()