[Gib_Papazian]

I've been off the air for a few days and took a look at how this post evolved with interest. John, Shivas and myself took a look out there together and I will not go so far as to state that the work is terrible. It is competent, consistent and presents a good test for Tour players. But that is all it is. Nothing more and hardly inspirational.

Generally, I rarely disagree with Patrick, but this time we are at a fork in the road. I do not pretend to be a Rees expert, but amongst others I have played or seen:

Lake Merced
Pinehurst 7
Atlantic
Poppy Ridge
MPCC
Torrey South

With the exception of MPCC, which works really well, the rest leave me cold.

Specifically, Rees does not seem to have a grasp of how the average golfer plays the game. There is ZERO attempt to engage the golfer with creative approach options, leaving only a narrow entrance to elevated greens.

The putting surfaces themselves are well done, but all look alike after a while. His green complexes are as easily identifyable as something done by Ted Robinson.

It doesn't matter which side of the fairway you hit your tee shot because the prime directive is to keep it between the gutters and hit a high flyer into the green with mind-numbing repetition.

Rees does not seem to understand that hazards are supposed to be placed on the interior of golf holes as a strategic arrangement and not just plopped at the fringes of play for the sake of being penal.

I always feel as if I'm being physically challenged and rarely mentally on his courses and Torrey South might as well be Lake Merced or Pooppy Ridge without the clifftops and nudie beach. It all looks and plays the same. Plug and play and nevermind stretching the envelope.

In addition, the green complexes all look the same visually. He must have been taught that blindness in any form is a mortal sin because every hole has the entire target and putting surface out in front of you. There is no mystery, just read the yardage and rip it.

There is little point in speculating what his marching orders were because every course except MPCC looks alike.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Torrey was handed over to: (I'll leave Neal and myself out of this to avoid drawing fire)

John Harbottle
Todd Eckenrode
Tom Doak
Schmidt and Curley
Gil Hanse
C&C
Jones Jr. (Laugh, it would have had personality)
Mike Strantz
Brian Silva
Ron Forse
Tad Bucchannan
Doug Nichols
Brad Benz

Pick one. Any one. I'd bet the farm John, Shivas and I would have liked it better. It could have/should have been one for the ages. Now it is just another generic tour stop that is going to get handed the U.S. Open.

Naccarato will shoot me for saying this, but Fazio would have at least given them something with panache.

I have said it before, it astounds me that a man whose home course is in the shadow of the sacred windmill cannot come up with anything more than the same formulaic architecture.

SandPines and Bethpage I've not seen, but nobody who knows me has urged me to make a special trip. . . . .    

[Mike_Cirba]

Similar to Gib, I have talked about Rees Jones in the past here and offered similar criticisms of his work.  I've been amazed that someone who has had incredible exposure to the world's greatest classic courses on a detail level would veer so far from that standard in his original work, for reasons I simply couldn't fathom.    

For the record, I have played 2 courses he designed under his dad's name in 1968-74, 9 courses he built solo from NY to FL in the years from 1974-2000, and 6 courses he restored or renovated, either partially or fully.

To be honest, I liked his very early work best.  Sometime after 1983, his courses began to all look the same, in a style I found neither site specific nor aesthetically pleasing.  We've talked ad infinitum here about the mounds he created, as well as the squiggly amoeba and round circle bunkering, everywhere from the Oregon coast to south Florida, and I'm not sure which if any of those courses could be considered above a 6 or maybe 7 on any scale.  Most are 4's and 5's...not bad, but hardly inspiring.  Yes, some of them were quite difficult, but more in the way Gib suggests than in anything particularly innovative or thought-provoking.

I understand from some here that he is currently evolving into a more classic mode on his latest creations.  Certainly, the pictures shown here last year of Olde Kinderhook looked like nothing I've ever seen from him and seem VERY promising.  I hope to get there this year to see for myself.  

So, I don't know if that's bashing, but I think I'm keeping an open mind based on what I've seen, experienced, and heard.  I personally hope that he improves tremendously in the years to come and builds many great courses; not only because he gets many fabulous sites, but also because I understand that he's a helluva nice guy.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib and Mike,

If you've played the courses, and don't like them, that's more than fair, and I don't object to that.  If you played them and articulated your particular dislikes, that's fair and I don't object to that either.

I have objected to criticism of a course when one hasn't played it, or the relating of negative hearsay when one hasn't played the course being discussed.

Playing a golf course and articulating your evaluation adds to the overall data base and allows us to learn.

But, playing a course may not reveal the full story, particularly concerning environmental problems that may have impacted the design of the course, some of its holes, or its features.

Gib,

There have been some substantive changes at Atlantic, I'd like to get you back there again to see what you think.

[Gib_Papazian]

Patrick,
I would be interested to see what has been done at Atlantic since last summer. Neal and I were fortunate to play with Jay Chiat as his guest and were saddened to hear of his death last week. His nephew tells me that day was his final round of golf . . . . .

Has the routing been rejiggered? It was such a confusing mess and I was terribly disappointed. Somehow I thought it was going to be great.

Contrary to most Treehouse dwellers, although the mounding on the fringes of the fairway looks silly to me, it is not the prime focus of my criticism.

In fact, with the exception of Pinehurst #7, I have never played a Rees course with severe mounding except Atlantic. And Pinehurst #7 doesn't look nearly as manufactured as Atlantic.

Again, it is the sameness of the green complexes and bunkering.  The whole expression always appears to look like a combination of Nicklaus *strategies* (sic) and Pascuzzo/Graves formalized "Cape and Bay" bunkering.

Naturally this is not every single hole -  #11 and #12 at Atlantic are very good, especially #12 where Rees had some kind of strategic epiphany.

As a matter of fact, there are dozens of individual holes Rees has created that work well and are satisfying to play. Unfortunately, when you string the same thing together 16 or 18 times it loses my interest. Then, when I go to another Rees course and find the same thing with little creative integration into the site, it quite frankly begins to aggravate me.

In reality, Nicklaus (or his minnions) seem to push the envelope harder than Rees - sometimes I hate it, but at least I'm curious to have a look. I know Rees can do better because MPCC came out really well and encourages the ground game.      

[John_D._Bernhardt]

gib, you can save the money and just play Bandon or Pacific dunes and forget Sandpines. It is not worth the trip. I played it, then walked it trying to understand how such a nice piece of land could end up with that course. I also agree about MPCC. I do like his work there. The Rees holes fit the course and the land. I too hope his works moves in a classical direction for it seems he will get many opportunities over the next few years to work on great courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()