[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Has anyone ever played this Rees Jones design on Nantucket?  I know that this links course is listed in Golf Magazine's Top 100, but I have heard very little about the design.

[Matt_Ward]

Geoffrey:

You will probably get a wide assortment of thoughts on the course. I played it a few years ago in rating it for GD. The course did win in 1998 (?) in the category as the Best New Private Course in the USA and in my opinion deservingly so.

I believe Nantucket represents a change of design philosophy for Rees Jones -- although there are some on GCA who will argue the counterpoint vehemently. You do not get the major amount of periphery mounding you often see in early designs by Rees (i.e. Atlantic as just one example).

The course layout is as follows (yardage from back tees):

1). 380 yards
2). 393 yards
3). 523 yards
4). 348 yards
5). 217 yards
6). 572 yards
7). 471 yards
. 179 yards
9). 425 yards
Out - 3,508 yards

10). 464 yards
11). 416 yards
12). 531 yards
13). 208 yards
14). 331 yards
15). 475 yards
16). 171 yards
17). 387 yards
18). 590 yards
In - 3,573 yards
Total 7,081 yards
Course rating -- 74.7 / Slope 135

I see the course just on the outside as a top 100 layout because the competition is so demanding, and I believe there other Rees Jones courses a bit more worthy in their overall demands and presentation (i.e. Olde Kinderhook (NY), The Bridge (NY), are two that come quickly to mind). Nantucket does feature a good bit of man's hand on the site but I don't find that objectionable -- others do.

The layout does give the golfer avenues to play the ground game and at times it's necessary because winds easily whip through the property. Would love to see the discussion from those on GCA on the merits of Nantucket, Newport and Carnegie Abbey in Rhode Island. A solid trio of courses indeed for such a small state.  

[Paul Prudhomme]

Has the island of Nantucket been annexed by Rhode Island?

[Matt_Ward]

My wife just bought me a Hagstrom map and I NOW know what state Nantucket is in.

Thanks Paul for the reminder for missing Massachusetts -- still would like to see a comparison between the three courses I mentioned.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

I've never seen Nantucket G.C. (or even photos of it, I don't think) and I certainly don't want to start another argument like the one on Rees's "The Bridge", but I would like to ask your opinion of the "evidence of man's hand" (as you described it) at the Nantucket G.C. anyway.

If an architect has a nice piece of property and I'm assuming the Nantucket G.C. site was a nice raw piece of property (only because I know Nantucket a little bit and I remember the area the course is on) it's sort of accepted logic these days to work with the good land only insofar as you have to for good or great golf holes instead of indiscrimminately altering it particularly to the extent that "man's hand" becomes wholly evident.

So since you've been there and played the course although you say that "a good bit of man's hand" is evident, can you imagine the course and the site if "a good bit of man's hand" was not evident? And also if it was not how do you think the course and the holes would have turned out--better or worse, in other words? Do you think the "evidence of man's hand" was necessary to make the course a top 100 one or do you think without "evidence of man's hand" it would have been even higher ranked?

One of the primary reasons I ask this is it seems to me that almost all the classic architects we tend to admire, even inlcuding Raynor who did a lot of "manufacturing" ("man's hand"), only did it where it appears to have been necessary for golf and golf shots specifically. Even Raynor didn't get into applying "man's hand" to areas of holes that really weren't that consequential for golf and golf shots, and actually that includes most of the bodies of his golf holes (not including tees and greens and green sites). So the vast majority of the bodies of holes from the early era were left alone and used in a form that the land gave the architect.

Naturally it wasn't as possible to move large amount of the bodies of golf holes in the old days for obvious reasons but simply because it wasn't doesn't mean those early architects would have done it if they could have.

But the modern architects seem to do it! I don't know if they think they have to for some reason, or you think they have to for some reason, but it seems to me that although it's very possible and easy to do today they could just stop it!

So again, if Rees had not done that at Nantucket would the course have been better? Or alterntively do you think if Rees had left the bodies of most of the holes they way they were naturally, Nantucket G.C. would have been worse for some reason?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Don't you think you owe it to yourself, to play a golf course before offering blanket pronouncements, pro or con about the land, and/or the golf course upon which it resides ?

[Bob_Huntley]

I played the course a couple of years ago and enjoyed it. Big, expansive, no houses around, firm conditions and sound bunkering. Strategic values not great but visually attractive. I found that paying off a bet with a single malt was rather like eliminating the national debt of Zimbabwe.

For sheer fun, go across the road and play Sankaty Head.  

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Good questions!

First, I don't see Nantucket as a top 100 course. Why? The competition out there is very keen and I believe Rees has done a better job with a few other courses (i.e. Olde Kinderhook, The Bridge, etc.).

That doesn't mean Nantucket is devoid of quality and worthy of a visit ... there's plenty of good holes and when the wind picks up in velocity you have very credible test to contend with.

As far as the site is concerned I can't say with total certainty what the result could have been with less of man's hand involved. I just think it's important that people here on GCA and elsewhere keep in mind that even the old time classic designers used "man's hand" to build their respective layouts. One quick example comes quickly to mind -- they didn't call Charles Banks "steam shovel" for nothing. Granted, many of the old timers didn't move several million cubic yards of material but they did more than many people realize or admit.

The question becomes one of degree and blending. In early Rees layouts you have hideous "containment" mounding (see Atlantic GC) that is so loud, abrasive and out of place. It often was done to provide some sort of protection for the weaker player by "containing" misses. In addition, the mounding concept was extended to provide "definition" to targets and separation points between holes. Totally manufactured clearly and often way out of place as a necessity in defining quality shotmaking. Even Huntsville (PA) has elements of this type which I believe were not necessary to include.

I have stated in previous threads (i.e. the one on The Bridge stands out) that Rees has evolved his design philosophy over the years and the abruptness of "containment mounding" is less of an issue with many of his latest efforts (i.e. Black Lake is another fine example in Michigan).

I see Nantucket as a "turning point" from the type of courses many have seen from his early design days (i.e. Arcadian Shores). Sadly, there are a few contributors to GCA and elsewhere who think if you've seen one Rees course the rest are all the same. That's not the case and often indicates, in my mind, intellectual laziness to see more up-to-date designs. Keep in mind not every course that Rees has done most recently always works out well (i.e. Tattersall in West Chester, PA).

Nantucket is a solid course but for those "pure classic" types on GCA I don't know how they will view the course but it's likely the "Rees factor" will probably influence some minds even before the very first tee shot. I see Nantucket as a clear departure from design elements Rees has relied upon in the past and I salute him for being able to adjust his thinking in not just rubber stamping design formulas that you see from some other high profile names in golf design today.

Hope this helps ...

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt,

Although I haven't seen any of his more recent work beyond Huntsville and Tattersall, I am going to try to get to Olde Kinderhook this year, based on what I saw from Pete Galea's pictures.

If Rees's design style is evolving for the better, I certainly am eager to see it, although I can't say that Tommy's pics from Torrey Pines thrilled me.

In truth, I thought Rees's early stuff like Arcadian Shores and Montauk Downs (under his Dad's firm) fit the terrain much more naturally than much of the work he started doing in the 80s and 90s.  Some of the bunkering at Arcadian is almost Mackenzian in look, although some here might claim that as heresy.  There are also very few mounds or unnatural features on either of those courses.  

How he jumped from that to the rounded, mounded look with circular pots and amoeba bunkering that he created everywhere from Sandpines to Wild Wing to LPGA National in the next two decades is something I am somewhat bewildered by.  Ironically, it was during this period that he was also doing US Open doctor work on classic courses that was largely hailed, so I see that as quite the interesting dichotomy in his career.

Still, I've heard enough from others who have hailed his most recent work as a return to a more classic form that I will be most interested to see for myself.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
I agree with you enjoy Rees' earlier style--Oyster Reef being his best I have played.

When Matt speeks of closed minded GCA and 'pure classic' types (although I prefer great architecture types) he is probably speeking of me since we have disagreed on this before. Rees was given one of the most unusual and unique sites in the USA and chose to build something that could have been dropped down in Florida or rural Ohio. But of course it is not in Fla or Ohio, its located in one of the loveliest spots on the east coast and therefore benefits from its location. Everyone knows Macdonald, Raynor and Banks moved dirt, but they are also aware that were brilliant at indentifying and utilizing the natural attributes of their given site. That is, in my opinion, the essence of great routing and that is where Rees dropped the ball in this case. I have no problem with somone have a distinctive style, but please don't ignore the God given attributes of the site. Nantucket really cried out for a low profile design to meld with the low profile nature of the location. Not a bad course, just a sad waste of a one of a kind site.

Matt
It seems you have modified your former opinion that Nantucket was a masterpiece. Do you think some of your characterizations - 'pure classic' types - could be described as generalizing? I think there is room for many opinions and respectful disagreement with out resorting to blanket statements.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike C:

When GD rated Arcadian Shores as being among America's top 100 something was terriby amiss Mackenzian bunkering -- Mike, surely you jest!

As far as Torrey Pines is concerned I completely agree with Brad Klein's take that pre-Torrey was really no great shakes architecturally speakingl. I have not played the course since post-Rees but many of the holes at pre-Torrey were just blah and failed to integrate the marvelous terrain into the actual holes.

My point on Rees applies to all architects -- there's no way you can name a designer and say, ipso facto, it's a great course or poor one. Each course needs to be examined on its own merits. Clearly, there will be patterns with some and some of these patterns (i.e. containment mounding, among them) will be quite rightly frowned upon. You're right about the differences between the work Rees has done with some of his public design from the 80's and early 90's (most notably the lame result with Sand Pines) and with what he has done on US Open layouts. My own take is that I would have preferred a more "wild and natural" look on the work he did at the Black but that's just my take even though the finished golf course is still a dynamite result given all the years of neglect.

Get thee to Olde Kinderhook ASAP! It's a marvelous course which unfortunately, because of its location (just south of Albany), gets little recognition since much of the focus of New York State is centered around Westchester, Nassua and Suffolk Counties. Would be interested in seeing the course again ... maybe we can hook up together ... check your date book for this summer!

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward;

I agree with your view the Torrey Pines (before any Rees work) was nothing special.  Certainly pretty sunny Southern California views but nothing to excite golf architecture fans.

Having not seen Rees' work, I can't comment on that issue.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Nantucket is not a "masterpiece" (don't recall ever using that word to describe it?), but it's a worthy design where players of all types will be tested. Look, we just disagree which is OK because I don't believe Rees simply "ignored" the attributes of the site as you claim and I never made any serious claim that Nentucket belongs in the same league with SH or NGLA.

Just keep in mind Tom that I have seen / played plenty of Rees Jones courses and have the benefit in seeing how his work has evolved over the course of time. How many other Rees Jones courses have you played in order to make comments on his style? Is it just a handful? Do you believe such a small sampling gives you a clear perspective on what he has done and what he is doing now?

I credit Nantucket with being a clear step away from the over-the-top mounding you see in a number of his previous efforts. After Nantucket Rees has carried forward with such solid results in Olde Kinderhook and The Bridge, to name just two. Tom -- Nantucket is much, much more than just "not a bad course" as you mention.

As far as my statement "pure classic types" I do believe there are people who view golf architecture with a predisposition to what was done from years gone by and usually give little credence to modern courses when it does not fit that particular style / type. I will clearly add more specificity in itemizing this for people who don't understand what I am speaking about.

Hope this helps ...

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Tom,

In your opinion, why did this course not meet the expectations of a "one of a kind site"?  Where possible, try and provide specific examples/holes to support this...

[Tom Macwood (Guest)]

Geoffrey
The site was a combination of gently rolling sandy terrain,  weathered trees, native plants and grasses, and the only place in the USA where heather is naturalized. A golf course that took advantage of the gentle and not so gentle natural contours of the site, that worked in the ghostly weathered trees and some of the natural sand and that utilized the island heaths, and integrating them all together would have been more to my liking. Instead we have the typical course with all too familar regular grading and well framed playing surfaces (by both by Rees' typical hazards and - to his credit - beautifully maintained native grasses). The course was built during a period when psuedo links designs were quite popular. Not a bad course, especially if the site were not so interesting, but disappointing due to the unique course it could have been - an extremely natural island heathland design. I'm affraid I've covered this topic so many times that I no doubt sound like a broken record.

Isn't the course listed among Golf Digest's top 100?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Nantucket is rated 4th best in Massachusetts but it's not among GD's top 100 for 01-02.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Tom,

The course is not listed in GD's Top 100, which I think is partly due to the remote location of the course (it is not exactly on the way to anywhere except Nantucket).  As a result, I am guessing not many reviewers make the trip out there to play this very private club.  GD requires at least 30 reviews to be eligible for the Top 100.

The course is currently ranked #54 in Golf Magazine's 2001 US rankings and #91 in the world rankings.

It sounds to me like the course could have been an Atlantic coast version of Pacific Dunes, if the architect had taken more minimilist stategy, no?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

No, not a Pacific Dunes. There are no dunes, much less towering dunes, and there is no view of the sea, although its effect can certainly be felt in the wind. Its really not like any other place in the US, in fact from what I understand it is one of the more unique environments in the world. A combination of grasslands, heathlands and moors.





I found this construction photo. I think I understand what Matt is referring to, these seem to be much artistically created mounds than in the past.

[Steven_Biehl]

I have played Nantucket, and my opinions of the course tend to parallel those of Tom MacWood.  I think something very unique could have been created at that site.  That doesn't mean that the present course was a lost cause, it is a good course.  But I don't think Rees made the most of the qualities of the site.

This is the only Rees Jones course I have played, so I can't compare it to any of his other designs.  But, I did feel some of the mounding at Nantucket was a little out of place, especially between 12 and 15 fairway, between 6 and 7 fairway and around 5 green.  These areas looked too manufactured.  I have heard that the club is going to have Rees back to rework the mounding between 12 and 15, maybe this will help the looks a little.

As was stated before the course doesn't offer much for strategy, just keep it in the fairway.  I thought the bunker lined fairways became a little monotonous before the end of the round.

The bunkers at Nantucket could have been a lot better.  Something other than the perfectly rounded and shaped bunkers would have made a big difference for this course.

In closing, I think Nantucket is a great course, but not on the site where it sits now.  With the lay of the land and the native vegitation that already existed, I would have expected something more.

If you would like to see pictures, e-mail me.  I don't know how to post them here.

[Matt_Ward]

Steven Biehl:

Help me to understand something by your quote below ...

"In closing, I think Nantucket is a great course, but not on the site where it sits now.  With the lay of the land and the native vegitation that already existed, I would have expected something more."

How is a course "great" but not on the site it sits now?  Where would the course be great if it were on a different site? Please be specific so I can understand your rationale?

Tom MacWood sees the existing layout as being something that could be "dropped down in Florida or rural Ohio." Do you agree with that or not? What more were you "expecting?" Second, my bigger question is if a course is "great" how can it be lacking or in your words "expecting more." When something is great is it not the ultimate?

What other courses have you played would you use the word "great" with? Were they too lacking something that you were "expecting."

In your own words you admit this is the only Rees Jones course you've played. I would suggest seeing a few other Rees Jones courses, either those before or after his design at Nantucket, would have given you a better sense of how his architectural style has evolved.

Last question -- if you are familiar with the Doak scale what number what you give Nantucket?

Thanks for your answers ...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Irrespective of your analysis, praise or criticism of Nantucket,
How many of you who are commenting on the course have actually played all 18 holes ?

[TEPaul]

I really haven't taken the time yet to read all the posts on this thread except for Pat Mucci's!

Pat, that's another usual post of yours, probably intended to cow contributors from commenting on a golf course (Rees Jones's golf course in this case) unless they've played it.

I don't buy that, and never will. If you read my post to Matt Ward, you will see I'm making no pronouncements on Nantucket G.C. whatsoever! Again, no pronouncments whatsoever! All I'm doing is asking Matt some questions about a golf course (because I haven't played it) he's seen and played and remarked on in the general context of golf course architecture--the old versus the new ways of design and construction, to be exact! All I'm doing is asking him questions on his remarks about Nantucket G.C.!

No pronouncements whatsoever! But following Matt's answers, or yours, maybe I will make a pronouncement or two on those answers!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I've only played 11 of the holes.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I pulled up lame on #12.   :-/

[Steven_Biehl]

Matt Ward
How is a course "great" but not on the site it sits now?

Apperantly this idea has been brought up before.  If Tom MacWood said it could be "dropped down in Florida or rural Ohio," I would have to agree with rural Ohio, but not on Nantucket.  I don't think that mounding on the course fits the surrounding terrain, and I think that takes away from the site as a whole.  

When something is great is it not the ultimate?

No.  I would consider a course that is "the ultimate" to be of very high quality, and difficult to improve on.  Maybe "good" would have been more appropriate to use.  My apologies.

I get the impression that you are judging Nantucket against other Rees Jones designs.  Maybe compared to Rees' earlier designs, Nantucket makes a great stand.  By saying Nantucket is the only Rees Jones design I have played, I am simply saying that I have not played enough of Rees' courses to have a clear bias for or against him.  The fact that Nantucket does display his trademark bunkering and the "containment" mounding, is why I think something better could have been done with the site given.  Maybe Rees' style has evolved since his efforts at Nantucket, but that doesn't change the way Nantucket looks or plays.  Rees could design the greatest course in the world tomorrow, but that wouldn't change my views of what he did at Nantucket.

I have heard of the Doak scale, but am not familiar with the distribution of points.

Patrick Mucci,
I have played all 18 holes a few times.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()