Hollywood, NJ and Quaker Ridge

[Tom T.]

Don't bother with Hollywood--Rees Jones got a hold of it.  Mr. Circle (given this name for his oval, completely nondescript bunkers) has done it again.  Takes a neat, fun course and changes it to his style of manicured, landscaped and less interesting golf.  Why in the world the Quaker Ridge members allowed him to touch their course is really a mystery. The NY Park people will find out why their Black course fell out of the top 100 the more it is played by those who saw it before Mr. Circle got a hold of it.  The Open Doctor should be sued for malpractice.

[Bubba Jefferson]

Dear Tom T.,I thought only Mr. Circle's family spoke bad of his work. Clearly not.I always considered Mr. Circle to be an innovator. For instance, he honed the brilliant strategy of placing bunkers on the outside of doglegs at courses in Virginia. Along with insipid mounding, what else are the highlights of his design career, other than never designing a good course despite being paid a lot of money?Is he in a league by himself when it comes to being overrated or does he have some company?

[Tom T]

In response to Bubba Jefferson's comments about Rees Jones-I don't know what his marching orders were for the renovation of East Lake G. C. in Atlanta or Ocean Forest G. C. on Sea Island, GA but they both fit in the Discussion Groups item of overated.  East Lake is a  nice piece of ground on which nearly everything there before was merely Rees Jonesed by the master himself: Dr. Circle.  So many holes look the same--they go the same direction and those god awful round descriptionless bunkers.  Every par five hole goes the same way so that in the prevailing wind they're all reachable in two shots.  Believe it or not, the best hole is the 18th-a 235yard par three!  Great job on the clubhouse--does Rees take credit for that, too?  Ocean Forest, which for some terrible political reasons will host the 2001 Walker Cup (and East Lake just happens to be hosting the US Amateur the week after!), features the boring design work of Mr. Circle also.  Again, several holes look the same--this time they are his original work.  Great locker room, though.  A nice place to visit in the summer because of the knats, deer flies and mosquitoes.  The US team should have no trouble wiping out the GB&I team, in fact they may forfeit when they all get bitten by the bugs. Oh yeah, his bunkers--perhaps the plainest, most oval in his career. It's only a 1/2mile walk from the 18th green back to that great locker room-but the club does leave finished players who walked carts to use.  I think Rees takes credit for the carts but not where the 18th green is.

[Clark]

I agree - why East Lake is so well regarded is a mystery.  Well, maybe it shouldn't be a mystery - afterall, it has the two ingredients that bilnd people: a tremendous clubhouse and great conditioning.  The basic layout is just that - basic.On the back nine, every hole except the 17th runs parallel to each other. The 10th is just plain awkward; I'm not sure if the Tour playing it as a par four helped it or accentuated the awkwardness.You think the 18th is the best hole?  What's so great about a long, uphill par three with a green that looks like it is situated in the circle in front of the clubhouse?  Plus, it heads west, into the setting sun.  It is by far the least appealing par three 18th I've seen.It's a nice place to play, but the course is nothing special.

[Tom T]

In response to Clark's opinion that the 18th at East Lake is not the best hole on the course, I will amend my opinion and say that there is no best hole at East Lake.  It is the only hole I can remember!  I do faintly remember the 6th hole, which is also a par 3, because the green is in East Lake.  Didn't you like the range where you have to carry your warm up wedges 100 yards to get over East Lake?  Great clubhouse.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom T,I read your post with a great degree of curiosity, and have a statement and some questions for you.Rees Jones had and continues to have nothing to do with the level of manicuring performed by the staff at Hollywood.Rees Jones did NO landscaping at Hollywood as you allege.With respect to the bunkers, what bunker shapes and locations did he change  Could you cite the hole, and the affected bunker for me  Especially the circle bunkers you refer to.With the exception of the 17th hole, the membership is fairly delighted with the outcome of the project.  An outcome that was known prior to puting any shovels in the ground, since his plan was unveiled to the membership, explained to the membership, and voted on overwhelmingly by the membership.But just in case you feel the membership may be out of touch, Hollywood hosted the Met Open and Ike shortly after the restoration project, and the changes were praised by the majority of the players and officials involved with these tournaments.Would you describe any of the many bunkers added on the 12th hole as circular in nature?How about the left greendside bunker on 14 ?How about the circular bunkers he removed on #'s 10 and 16, who put them there ???Having played Hollywood frequently over the last ten years I feel fairly familiar with the course, membership, and people associated with the project, so I take exception to your comments.I can't say the same about East Lake, but I did have some questions.What RE-ROUTING work did Rees do ?What Holes ?Was East Lake a Donald Ross course ?How did Rees change Ross's routing ???Where was East Lake ranked between 1980 and 1994 ??In 1994 Golf Digest didn't rank it in the top100. Didn't Rees do his work in 1994, and didn't Golfweek rank it # 24 in 1997 ?Not being overly familiar with Bethpage Black, which most people praise, I have the following questions:In 1987 Golf Digest ranked it the 15th best course in the State of New York, and it was not among the top 100.   Do you think it will have a higher or lower ranking pre and post the U.S. OPEN ???In 1997 Golfweek didn't rank it in the top 100, do you think that will change pre and post the U.S. OPEN ?Do you think the Host club and the USGA has made repeated mistakes by having Rees do the alterations to the golf courses pre the U.S.OPENS ??Could you cite the specific mistakes ???I'm anxious to hear your point by point response.

[James Allen]

Who designed the original Hollywood, New Jersey course? I played there a long time ago and remember that it was bunkered like no other course I had (or have) seen. Do I understand that the bunkering has since been modified? Wonder why? I can see completely restoring it, yes, but not changing it.

[Rick Wolffe]

In my opionion the comments made by Tom T are  slanderous and personal.  Perhaps that explains why he cannot answer the questions posed by Mr. Mucci.

[Jmhaley]

I worked for Rees for a number of years and he takes great pride in his work. I think that there are some jealous people who just can't accept the fact that people really like his courses!

[Mike_Cirba]

James Allen;The original designer of Hollywood was one Isaac Mackie in 1913.  However, in 1915, the "Old Man", Walter Travis was brought in and it is widely believed that he is the one responsible for most of what is there today.  His bunkering is truly wild at Hollywood, and I can attest to the fact that it still looks that way "post-Rees", although having never played it prior, I can't say what exactly might have changed.I do know that over the years, a fair number of bunkers have been lost.  There is an old aerial overhead in the clubhouse that is truly mind-blowing.  The link below shows the course in its present state. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.asp?S=11&T=1&X=1457&Y=11139&Z=18&W=2

[BCrosby]

Patrick -  Boy, is it ever nice to have a Rees believer on the Board.  Now we can have some two sided arguments for a change.  I don't know much about the NE courses under discussion, but I know a fair amount about East Lake.  Tom T got it wrong.  So did you, at least as to your last point.  East Lake was the site of the 1962 Walker Cup matches.  There were no course ratings back then (thank god) but I think it safe to assume that a Walker Cup venue would have ranked somewhere in the top 100.  About 5 years later ('67/'68) the Atlanta Athletic Club decided to build a new course in the suburbs and sold the old East Lake to a group of mostly senior members. The new ownership had little capital, a dwindling membership base and a course surrounded by one of the worst, most dangerous neighborhoods in Atlanta or any other city.  Thus the decline of the Lake.  I played the course regularly in the '80's.  Every good player I know in the area loved the course, but its condition was, frankly, appalling and getting worse every year.  About 1995 Tom Cousins (a local real estate developer) bought East Lake and dropped about $25MM into it.  Given that it was already a superb strategic layout, it didn't require an architect of unsurpassed skills to bring it back into the top 100.   I would argue that any of 10 or 15 other architects that come up on these boards from time to time would have brought the Lake an even higher ranking.  That, of course, is pure speculation on my part.  I can tell you, however, that Rees diminished many of the best features of East Lake and that the new course, while immaculate and perfectly conditioned, is far less strategic and interesting than the old goattrack.  I would be pleased to provide hole by hole specifics on request.        

[T_MacWood]

Mike Cerba thanks for the aerial of Hollywood. Although its hard to get a feel for the contours from the air, knowing Travis's penchant of pushing the envelope to the brink of insanity Hollywood looks like a wonderful course. I assume the photo was taken pre-Rees and I hope he was in his respectful Brookline mode; not in his Lake Merced, Monterey Pens. or East Lake mode -- the last three being the antithesis of the Old Man's work.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood;Thanks...from what I was able to see from the ground, it looks wonderful as well.  I'm still hoping to get out there and play in the next couple of weeks, so I'll give a full report.  I believe the pic is from 1997, and Rees completed his work in 1998.  

[David Staebler]

I played Hollywood about a week and a half ago for the first time.  I knew it was something special before I went but was unaware of its history and who the architects were who touched it.  During the round I saw some mounding and some green surround grassing that clued me into the fact that renovations had happened there in the recent past.  It was only after I had finished that I became aware that work was by Rees.There is a great deal of innovation there that suprises and delights the eye.  Bunkers all around the course are built into large kops which appear to have been created a long time ago (I assume by Travis).  Many of the greens are wildly coutoured.Patrick: I am curious what the par 3 17th was like before the renovation.  The green is among the most dramatically contoured on the course.  One player in my group was in the left bunker and had to play a stroke from a downhill lie to the green elevated 6 to 8 feet above.  Is it that type of playability that has dissatisfied the membership there or did Rees screw up the look?  I have to say I thought the par 3's were all good.  Oddly there are only three, with the 17th being the most difficult of the group.  After returning home I read Doaks review in the Confidential Guide and found it to be on the mark.  I'll drive the two hours from Philadelphia anytime to play it again.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,The old 17th was about 240 yards with an incredibly wild green, too much so for a hole of that length.Someone told me that the 17th green was the original 7th green, which is plausible considering that a short iron into such a green made more sense than a 3-wood or driver.The left greenside bunkering is similar to what previously existed hence it is a non-issue with the membership and almost everyone else.  This may sound hard to believe, but I've had down hill lie bunker shots to greens several feet above me at a lot of great courses.  Have you ever played a Charlie (steamshovel) Banks course ???I may have the "OLD" aerial of the golfcourse that is truely mind boggling, in a short time.  I will definitely post it, as it has to be seen to be believed.I find it interesting that many people read a post and interpret the language the way they prefer, instead of the way it reads.SO...... My challenge to Guess Who and others, is to review everyone of my posts and see if you can find one sentence where I said Rees's architecture was great.  Conversely, try to find one post where I said it wasn't good.  Most of my posts defending Rees were based on what I perceived as non-factual comments, or comments biased beyond being prudent, and I felt compelled to set the record straight factually, or challenge the poster to document or clarify their argument or position.  Many, when challenged, can't substantiate their position.Rees has done some very nice work, and if there are those out there who claim otherwise, I would suspect jealousy or some personal bias.The work he did at Hollywood has been extremely well received by almost everyone.  It is also clearly recognized by most that the 17th needs some additional work.I remember Pete Dye reworking the 14th at Crooked Stick numerous time because he wanted to get it right.  I suspect the same at the 17th at Hollywood.

[T_MacWood]

My definition of a great architect is one who takes a good site and creates a great course or takes great site and creates something truely memorable. A good architect takes a good site and creates a good course; a great site and creates a great site. I consider it bad form when you are given a very good or great site and produce a mediocre or poor result. No living architect has been given more very good to great sites than Rees Jones -- Pinehurst #7, Sandpines, Currituck, Nantucket, Haig Point, Atlantic and Ocean Forest -- many architects go a career without one similar site. I don't know Rees Jones personally and I'm sure he is a nice man, but with sites like these the results should have been better than nice.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,You must not have seen the sites for Pinehurst #7 and Atlantic before they were Golf courses.  For you to say that they were very good to great sites tells me you never laid eyes on them in their pre development states.Atlantic especially, could be labeled as a mediocre site at BEST.  In order to phrase my questions properly, I need to know if you have ever played either course ??

[T_MacWood]

The Atlantic was an old potato farm, but the resourses that he had available to him in that section of LI put into the very good catagory. Much of #7 was built over land that was occupied by Ross' original #4 and similar rolling sandy soil, most architects would have given their left arm for the site. If you are satisfied with the Atlantic so be it, but in my opinion the other sites deserved better. And it has nothing to do with professional jealousy.

[T_MacWood]

I've played #7 and only seen photos of Atlantic -- and must say it is quite photogenic.

[Tom]

Pat, I have to ask, how many times have you and Rees done business?I just have the funniest of feelings you have written checks to him for services rendered. (Both directly and indirectly)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,You really made my point.In your post of 10-05-00 6:49 PM, you provided your definition of a great architect.  You further stated that it was related to the result based on the starting site, and..... you tell us that Rees has had great sites, specifically naming Atlantic.Now you admit, you have never seen Atlantic, either pre or post golf course.How could you tell us it was such a great site if you never laid eyes on it ?It further proves my point relative to Rees bashing.  People make rash statements without the facts.As far as the site goes, part of it was a potato farm, but other parts were laced with scuttle holes, huge pits created by the glaciers many years ago.  These scuttle holes are protected from any construction by the environmentalists.  The permiting process strictly prohibited any encroachment near those areas.  This was no great site.It was mediocre at best.  You say you have seen photos of it, and they are quite striking.  Why, because Rees transformed a poor piece of land into a good golf course, that is also aesthetically pleasing, despite site and environmental constraints.You mentioned in your 10-05-00, 10:20 PM post that Rees had all these resources available to him in that section of Long Island, Specifically, what resources are you talking about ?You mentioned that you played Pinehurst # 7.How far is Pinehurst # 7 from the original complex of five (5) golf courses, and the main clubhouse at Pinehurst ???Lastly, you or another Tom asked me how many times I've done business with Rees, directly or indirectly.  That's easy to answer.....NEVER.  I  have no business connection to Rees in any manner, shape or form.  To enlighten you, my dad knew his dad because they lived in towns next to each other and were both prominent in the golfing community.  I know Rees through golf and mutual friends.In fact, Rees was a little upset with me a few years ago when I was about to hire a superintendent at a course he was working on, for an upcoming U.S. OPEN.  He approached me at on the putting green at Old Marsh during a member-guest, and we had a cordial but intense discussion.I like Rees, I have for many years, but, I would defend anyone that I like from unfactual or unmerited attacks, such as the ones that have appeared on this site.I hope I have explained my position, and clarified any misunderstandings.  All that I would ask is that criticism be based on facts and experience.Again Tom, I would ask, how could you make negative comments about a golf course or site you've never seen I think you would agree, that's just not fair to the person you're criticizing.  Do I have my criticisms of Atlantic ?, of Rees ??  Yes I do, but they are based on facts and personal experience, not hearsay.

[AWT]

Certainly every committee is firmly convinced that their particular club includes more fault-finders than any other, but they are to be encountered everywhere and it is likely that they are distributed about rather evenly.  What a blessing it would be if it were only possible to concentrate them all in one organization, and give them free rein.  What a course they would have!  What debates and wrangles!  The Kilkenny cats would lose their renown.

[AWT]

Certainly every committee is firmly convinced that their particular club includes more fault-finders than any other, but they are to be encountered everywhere and it is likely that they are distributed about rather evenly.  What a blessing it would be if it were only possible to concentrate them all in one organization, and give them free rein.  What a course they would have!  What debates and wrangles!  The Kilkenny cats would lose their renown.

[Mike_Rewinski]

Atlantic is the only Rees Jones course that I have seen and even though I have played it 5 or 6 times I am hard pressed to remember the routing or many of  the individual holes. What does this say about the course? But I do remember liking the course in general. As far as the site goes it had a certain amount of potential but remember most of it was a potato farm. There were a lot of resources available in terms of money, Rees moved a tremendous amount of dirt, cubic yard amounts mean nothing to me but people were taking about the numbers in awed voices. So the site had enough elevation change to be interesting and the rest of it was a blank canvas with the funds to shape it as needed, the golf course is interesting but not inspiring. Are these things to be viewed as positives or negatives, or both?

[T_MacWood]

PatrickI'm glad I made your point, although I'm having difficulty figuring out exactly what your point might be. My comments were in response to your challenge that Rees had designed some very nice work and those who felt otherwise were either jealous or had a personal bias. I have neither and I believe he has wasted more opportunities than ten architects normally get in a lifetime.Lowell Schulman founder of the Atlantic: "...the next day inspected the 204 acre potato farm in Bridgehampton. It was magnificent rolling parcel of sandy soil, perfect for golf. Jones was impressed with the sites native contours--ideal sand hills, he thought for a links-style layout, with the holes routed through natural-looking dunes." Maybe they were mistaken.From the photos, I see a contrived golf course -- each hole framed by artificial appearing mounding and bunkering on the perimeter, and of course the ever present visually striking fescue. The fairways appear to be very flat with little or know relationship to the surrounding 'dunes'-- the perfect spot to land a small aircraft. The strategy of the holes looks very similar to the other Rees courses I've played, completely forgetable. But since I haven't played, I'll concede to your judgement of the course.As the crow flies Pinehurst #7 is closer to the clubhouse than you think, it is right up against #4. This course is perfect example of his 'Sea of Tranquility' bunkering and strategic genius that have the effect of cleansing the golfer's mind of all memory of the place 24-hours after leaving the property.Rees Jones doesn't create bad golf courses per say -- but his total lack of creativity, artistry, eye for the natural and strategic thought combined with some of the best sites of the modern era leaves me disapointed. Twenty years from now, the man who is asked to bring interest to his courses will be hailed as a genius.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: