Hollywood, NJ and Quaker Ridge

[AWT]

It has been said that a block-head can find more fault with a course than a wise constructor could ever accomplish.  Frankly it is best to regard the chronic objectors as block-heads and treat them with all possible toleration.

[T_MacWood]

And by the way I am neither 'Tom T.' or 'Tom'.AWTThanks. You're the first legend, all be it a dead one, to insult me.

[AWT]

This fault-finding is bound to crop out, no matter how sound and excellent the work may be.  As a rule the carpers are in hopeless minority but they make a lot of noise for this very reason.  The players who are blessed with common sense, patiently wait until they have played over the course, then critically, but fairly, attempt an analysis.  

[T_MacWood]

AWTI've played plenty of Rees' creations, so many in fact that I was forced to wear a drool cup for a short time. I'll give you the Atlantic, since I haven't played it. But what seperates it from Nantucket, #7, Talamore, Sandpines, CC of HH, Haig Point, Currituck and Ocean Forest. Did Tillinghast have the opportunity to work with better sites than these?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Well, we've sure drifted far away from the original thread, which was Hollywood, where it is widely recognized that Rees did a very nice job.Now.... back to the fray.Mike,When I was in school the teachers used to get upset with me because they would ask a question, and I would shout out the answer.  They became particularly annoyed when they asked a specific person a question, and I would volunteer the answer.  I was told to please raise my hand and wait my turn.Now, I know how they felt.Please allow the person who made the statement, Tom, to respond to the question, without any hints from the audience.What Private golf course being built doesn't have resources ?(money) Was Caves Valley lacking in funds ???Just look at the other courses being built in the Hamptons and elsewhere, Usually, the developer has pretty deep pockets, aka resources.As I stated in another post, if we picked apart wives like some do golf courses, open armed conflict would break out.I guess critics tend to be more outspoken than those satisfied with the product.Now I have heard many people, some on this site, praise Nantucket, and Rees's course in Pa.  Are all these people morons ?  What I object to is blanket attacks, never giving the architect one scintilla of credit for some nice work.  I object even further when people criticize a golf course they have never laid eyes on.Mike, I also feel that Atlantic lost something when they kept on changing the routing, not allowing familiarity to set in.The original routing didn't have both nines ending up at the clubhouse, which was one of the routings for some time.One of Atlantic's problems is the company it keeps.  Tell me what new course in the last nine years would have an easy time when compared to NGLA, Shinnecock, Maidstone, and Westhampton.  That's pretty tough competition.In case people don't feel I can be objective, or say anything negative about the course, one of my criticisms of Atlantic is that for a course that has played fast and firm for as long as I can remember, it is hard to approach many greens along the ground, other than some rather narrow approaches.  I also feel that the greens are kept too fast and firm, such that incoming shots end up at the back of the green, faced with downhill, downgrain, downwind in some cases, putts, on lightning fast greens.This is one of the only sites I know of where people criticize the course and the architect because the course is magnificently maintained.  That part I find as pure jealousy. Tom, I have read that type of P.R. piece before.  I also heard that Ed Minskoff claims to have found the property, a potato farm owned by one of the Galesi's, a family that I was friendly with over twenty years ago.  I also regard Lowell as a friend.Did the property have some nice features, yes.  Did it contain some horrible features, yes.  The fact is the course almost didn't get built due to enviromental and permiting issues with the town and other agencies.Tell me what classic architects had any type of problems with environmental and permiting issues.  They could do whatever they wanted with the land, and come as close as they wanted to any body of water.When I played the Rees Jones course in Pinehurst, I had to get in a car and ride for 15-20 minutes to get there.  Are we talking about the same course ???When I played Pinehurst every spring in the North-South amateur, all five courses started at or near the clubhouse, not 15-20 minutes away from the hotel.  Are you sure we're talking about the same Rees Jones course  Tom, so that I can better understand your position, what courses built between 1985 and 1995 do you think are great.  And what architects in the same period do you think did great work ?Lastly, do you know that a lot of people don't like my favorite course, NGLA.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am hopeful that I will have a copy of the picture of Hollywood from the locker room which shows Hollywood before they removed a zillion bunkers years ago.  The photo is mind boggling and I think most wll enjoy it.  I wondered why they removed these bunkers, and would claim that if they were still there Hollywood would enjoy a unique and  special place in American golf course architecture.  It sure looks great and fun to play.

[redanman]

PatrickThe fourth tee at Pinehurst #7 has remnants of bunkering from Ross's original #4 visible near the tee. There is also if you turn around from the back tee on #10 at #2 an abandoned hole visible.  This shows proximity and quality of available land in Pinehurst.  There is not much bad land near that town centre!Pinehurst #7 is downright disappointing, appallingly repetitive and also suffers from the company it keeps in the village just as the Atlantic does out on Long Island, doesn't it? Coincidence? Space Aliens? Bad onion soup?Just as a friendly jibe, if your driver took 20 minutes from the Hotel to #7 he either didn't know where he was going or he took you to #6.   Which if you blow up #10 which never should have been built (along with all the cheap houses) is a better course than #7.

[redanman]

 http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.asp?S=12&T=1&X=800&y=4869&Z=17&W=2 From the circle at upper right go south, #7 is on the right.#2 and the rest is clearly recognizable.

[AWT]

Not long ago some recent construction work was abused loud and long.  It assumed the aspects of a tempest, but after getting down to the bottom of the situation, the committee discovered that the criticisms were those of exactly three.  It was not long before the storm subsided, for the players, on the whole, welcomed the improvements and appreciated them.

[T_MacWood]

PatrickMy original reason for getting involved in this discussion, was due to your challenge that criticism of Rees Jones, was either based on jealousy or personal bias. I disagree with your assessment.I will concede to your observations regarding the Atlantic. I do feel it is curious that the founder and the architect felt the site was magnificent and an ideal, whereas you felt it was ugly and mediocre. Not all private courses have the same resources, be they funding or location. I'm not familar with the original finacial situation, but I do know the club started very successfully and is in the heart of the wealthiests communities in the country. I do think its location was a major asset, one of the reasons I felt the course was blessed with resourses. Being on an island it is blessed with sandy soil and breezes, because of its proximatey to the sea. Also because of its neighborhood the bar was set high. Those involved understood comparisons would be natural and for that reason they set the bar high. You can not dispute expectations were very high.As far as comparing golf courses to one's wife, bad analogy. You don't get play my wife.You said critics are more outspoken than those who are satisfied. But of crticism is articulate and supported with reasoned thought, it is every bit as valid. You should NOT criticize the critic for being a critic, you should argue why his criticisms are wrong.Are those who praise Nantucket morons, no. The majority of the country feels that White Zinfandel is a great wine. They are not morons, it's more a case of unrefined tastes.You object to blanket attacks. But my attack has zeroed in on Rees Jones and I have specifically named which projects I felt were disapointments and why. And I have never mentioned the condition of his courses.There have been many architects who have created extremely interesting results under todays enviromental restrictions: Dye, Coore, Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse, DeVries, Fazio, Morrish, Strantz, Smyers, Axland and Proctor.Courses from 1985-95 that are great, that's an odd question. Sand Hills, Blackwolf, Kapalua, the original High Point, Long Cove, WW Pine Barens, Forest Highlands, Double Eagle, Shadow Creek, Loch Lomond are all in the very good to great catagory. I believe Rees' work at Brookline should be commended and is a highlight of this period. But if your point is that the era sucked, so we should give Rees a pass, I disagree. Disapointing results are disapointing results, no matter what the era.[Note:  David]

[Geoff_Shackelford]

I just read this exchange and Patrick and Rick, I have to pose a question. Why is it that when people are critical of Rees Jones' work, that it's always jealousy, slanderous, libelous, personal bias or some other such thing? It's one thing to be taken aback by a point of view, but to brush those comments off as not being legitimate by claiming they are libelous, disturbs me.Does this mean that if an opinion is not positive and differs from the various rankings or views of professionals that are cited, that it can't be a legitimate point of view and that it must be coming from some deep seeded Freudian frustration that we aren't big name signature architects?For instance, I have seen Monterey Peninsula Country Club before Rees and after Rees. I find it to be an awful transformation of the course. He took one of the most enjoyable courses in the world to play, one I would not say was an architectural masterpiece, but just a pure joy to play, and made it worse with the exception of one hole. I have nothing against the man, in fact I found him to be quite friendly, intelligent and humorous. But it's simply my opinion that the course was much better before he changed it. Is that slander? Am I not allowed to have that point of view and to share it here? If this is the case, that personal judgements and constructive criticism which aren't positive constitute slander and are demanded to be taken down off of the message board, we have a serious problem. It's a shame, but it's why many people with insights to share aren't posting things here anymore. Geoff

[Rick Wolffe]

GeoffWhen some one refers to another person as "Mr. Circle" in a dispariging way, is that not personally disrespectful?  Webster's defines slander as, "the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation."Do we need to restate the many blatant misrepresetations that have been carelessly posted here?When I was in the business of selling professional consulting services for Deloitte & Touche, it always pleased me to see that my competitors that resorted to badmouthing usually lost out in the end with substantially less business.  Perhaps this holds true for golf architecture.  I do not believe the same mean spiritedness existed in golf's golden age.  Perhaps you have some other info on that front.My thought would echo that of AWT's, "The players who are blessed with common sense, patiently wait until they have played over the course, then critically, but fairly, attempt an analysis."   I certainly enjoy the careful critiques and the opinions of the many that post here.  But Can't we have a little more fairness and civility?  I think most americans prefer the Cheney-Lieberman style of debate than the ugly alternative.Best regards and I hope you like the video that I sent you.  Congrats also on your Stanford campaign.RW (Rick Wolffe)

[Tommy_Naccarato]

So Rick and Pat,I want to know what you think of Desmond Muirhead?What courses of his have you played?(Hopefully both of you have played Stone  Harbor, since it is in your neck of the woods, I want your fullest and most honest opinions.)  Rick, Considering the company that Stone Harbor has with PV, Sommerset, and Baltusrol, is it still a worthy course?Pat, You go to Florida alot, have you played Aberdeen's famous Mermaid hole?   How about that square Buddhist-inspired "Temple" hole at Imperial Golf Club in Jakarta, Indonesia or the Guitar-influenced Segovia CC in Japan? Or How about this one that could have gone under that post about the golf course in France that was designed mimicking his wife's anatomy.  I ask these questions in all sincerity to this post.

[Rick Wolffe]

TommyGreat pics!  I have never played any of his courses.  I have read some of his articles in Links, I think, and have enjoyed the read.From your pics, I would like to make a go at the first two holes with one of my water balls, rather than my new Callaways that I won at the Jackie Robinson Foundation Outing at Montclair GC.The last pic does bring back one of my most memorable shots on the 8th at Quaker Ridge, which has two DD features.  After launching my second over the green and OB.  I hit my fourth over the left mound and in the cup on the fly for a nifty par.

[Mr. Block-Head]

RWI couldn't agree with you more, names like "Mr.Circle" or "Tillie the Terror" are mean spirited and totally uncalled for.You lost me on the "blatant misrepresentation", what exactly has been misrepresented? There have been many who have stated that they have been less than impressed with Atlantic, #7, Currituck, Wintergreen, East Lake, etc.; but little in the way of reasoned rebuttle. You here the cries of mean spiritness and the evils of critics, but no solid arguements in support.

[Paul Turner]

The only Rees Jones course I'm familiar with is The Oxfordshire in England-I read somewhere that this is essentially a regurgitation of The Atlantic.  At The Oxfordshire he really did have a only potato field with very little appeal.  He went for the modern stadium course, with huge spectator mounds lining the fairways which are fairly flat combined with some large man-made lakes.  I don't really care for the course and it certainly isn't "a natural, classic course that blends with its surroundings" as Rees claims in the yardage book.  He didn't have much to work with, but I can't understand why nearly all the earthwork went into the spectator mounds rather than into fairway contours.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Macwood,The crux of my post was that some people unfairly criticized Rees' work, especially when they don't have the facts.  You were particularly critical of Atlantic, yet you have never seen it.  You claimed that it was a great site, when it clearly wasn't.  You can read all the P.R. pieces you want, You've never seen the land.  Yet you were critical of Atlantic.  That's unfair, and You're not qualified to criticize a golf site and golf course you've never seen.  And by the way, neither am I or anyone else.The original thread was that Tom T posted negative comments about Hollywood, yet he couldn't answer one question I challenged him with.  The fact is Hollywood has been well received since Rees's work, and as much as you dislike it, there is no disputing thatTo say only you, and those who agree with you possess refined tastes, is a little elitist.  There are those who like the work done at Nantucket, and the course in Pennsylvania, and I would think they are every bit as qualified as you.  Does everyone like all his work, certainly not, including myself.If you feel Shadow Creek is great, we have a real difference in our assessment of golf courses.  Beautiful yes, great no.  And I have played it.While I can see some of Rees's work as good, you can't, to you it's all bad, and I think that's a biased opinion.  What of the work he did at Congressional, Baltusrol, Hazeltine  How was that received by the members, USGA, and pros ??Again, I think you diminished your credibility when you offered harsh criticism of a site and golf course you never laid eyes on.With respect to the financing at Atlantic, you and everyone else who posted are way off base.  There were some very real concerns about financing, and some mistakes made due to those concerns.  I don't know where you and others got the idea that there were unlimited resources because that certainly wasn't the case.  Again, people stating opinions not based on the facts.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rick, Thanks for trying to be honest.Pat, I hope you get my point. Your silence on the issue assures me you did.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Macwood,If Pinehurst # 7 is such a wonderful sight, and it sits so close to #4, how come # 4 never received any recognition ???How come # 3 never received any recognition?Same for # 1.  According to you these are among the best sites given to any living architect, How come Donald Ross couldn't do a better job there ??Tommy,I've never played a Desmond Muirhead course, but I have seen pictures such as the ones you provided.  What can I say ?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, I must have gotten my post in just before yours.The whole point is simple. Desmond is a brilliant, entertaining, charming, eccentric, Damen Runyon-nestic character which I'm proud to call him a very dear friend.This doesn't mean he can design a great golf course.

[Mike Carpenter]

Patrick,Rees' work at Congressional and Bethpage and others has been so well received that the USGA staff now recommends other design firms to clubs needing touch up work. Keith Foster at Southern Hills, Fazio at Merion and Riveria and Winged Foot. That is a fact, why is that? And if you aren't aware of the facts behind the disaster at Congressional and who really gets the credit for saving it from a horrific construction job (Paul Latshaw), you really are speaking on a subject you don't know enough about and preaching down to us in this manner is insulting.Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Carpenter,There was no construction, or architectual disaster at Congressional, there was a conditioning disaster.  It was widely known that there were serious, serious problems with the greens, and the climatic conditions in Washington D.C..  Paul Latshaw was brought in to solve those problems, which he did to the point that Buzz Taylor, called him a genius on national T.V..With respect to Southern Hills, I was somewhat involved in that process with Al Bush the Green Chairman at Southern Hills and Bob Randquist the Superintendent.  Keith Fosters selection surprised many people including members of Southern Hills.  The bet was that Coore & Crenshaw would get the work since they had recently designed an additional nine hole course that was well received by the members.With respect to Riviera, I thought Ron Forse had been retained.  I thought Ron Forse had designed and built the alternate green on # 10 as well.In an earlier post I thought I had offered an explanation of how clubs go about selecting architects for touch ups for upcoming U.S. OPENS.You and I have a substantial difference of opinion on his work at Baltusrol (lower), Congressional, and Hollywood, and I have played all three pre and post Rees.In my limited experience on this site, I have witnessed intense, if not venomous attacks on Rees and Fazio, now you're offering Fazio as the Guru for Merion.Would it be fair to say that your position is that with the sites Rees has been given, he could have improved his work ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,To address your questions I offer the following.I'm not a particularly big fan of # 7.I dragged Donald Ross into the discussion because you or others claimed that the site was amongst the best there is, so my query had to do with why he didn't do better work on sites you claim are fabulous.  In your post of 10-05-00 at 6:49 PM, you offered your definition of a good, or great architect, and production of good to great golf courses on good to great sites, then you took Rees to task for # 7, so with those great sites you must not think much of Ross's work, because, according to YOUR definition, he didn't fulfill his mandate for GREAT COURSES ON THE GREAT SITE.In my humble opinion, I don't think you can tell that Rees did the work at Baltusrol (lower), Congressional, Pinehurst # 2, or Hollywood, and I think that is a positive trait.My statement regarding elitism, stemmed from the analogy you offered.  A White Zinfandel, is a statement of fact.  Offering an opinion on a golf course is not a statement of fact, but a personal subjective evaluation.  On a given subject I do believe certain individuals are better qualified than other individuals with regard to their assessments, but that doesn't make them right all of the time.  Just witness Ron Whitten's comparing Jasna Polana to Winged Foot.  In addition, just because I respect an individuals knowledge and experience on a given topic, it doesn't mean that I agree with them.  If you need surgery, don't you get a second, or third opinion ?  I do !!!With respect to Mike Rewinski, I certainly respect his opinions, but I may not agree with all of them.  That doesn't diminish either of us.  Mike has made some valid points, but he made his evaluation on personal experience, not hearsay.  He has seen and played the course, and thus I respect his opinions far more than someone making critical remarks about a course they have never seen or played.With respect to Rees' other work, unlike others, I won't comment on those courses I have never seen or played.  I did tell you that I thought # 7 was just okay, nothing great.I still think there is an element of jealousy in some of the posts, but again, that's just my opinion, and I respect that others may disagree.

[Rick Wolffe]

Mike CarpenterMy understanding is that the USGA has NEVER made a recommendation to a club to hire a particular architect for U.S. Open work. In fact I would be shocked if anyone on the USGA Executive Committee or Executive/Senior Staff would put the USGA in the potentially compromising postion of making any such recommendation.Hiring a consulting golf course architect is and has been a decision of the host club.  I understand, Bethpage may have been an exception to the rule since the USGA funded a substantial amount of the golf courses improvements.As for Winged Foot, hasn't Fazio(s) been involved with this great club for many many years?  The same long history of one consulting architect, I think, can be said of Baltusrol?  I have no knowledge of Hazeltine and Congressional's history on their consulting architects of record.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Rick,Unfortunately, the USGA is directly responsible for supporting Riviera using the complimentary services of Tom Fazio and Associates to "restore Thomas's design intentions," I can tell you this is a fact as I begged for them to hire an architect specializing in restoration who charges for their work and who isn't in it for the publicity. (Before I forget, Team Fazio just tried to build a tee on 13 that wasn't on club property, which anyone who knows Riviera knew was not on our property. Now they had to put it elsewhere, which would be funny except I'm afraid it'll be at the expense of a beautiful and useful 80 year-old sycamore tree, which is surprising considering our club owner believes wise Japanese souls are entrenched in trees).But back to the point Rick, Tim Moraghan was asked by the club who they should use, and that's who he and Mr. Latshaw wanted to work with and that's who they got (Mr. Latshaw and Tim are aspiring architects in case you didn't know). I just Mr. Fay and the Green Section Committee can sleep at night claiming to not recommend architects or changes to courses when in fact the USGA staff is doing so daily, particularly in the Philadelphia area. The USGA really should focus their energies on "marketing" their role in the game and the need for equipment rollbacks of some sort, because frankly I sense they are going to be irrelevant in five years, if not sooner unless they figure out whether they want to savor their massive nest egg, or spend some of it defending the game. Geoff

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: