[George Pazin]

I can't be the only one who remembers the knockdown drag out thread on Nantucket maybe 18 months ago - whoever posted the photos that started that one, think twice before reposting...

Anyone able to draw comparisons between Nantucket & Friar's Head, or is the terrain too different?

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

Kudos to Steve Biehl's response!  This thread started to sound like an old Lee Corso Craig James College Game day argument.

I have yet to play that course...but I would listen to Biehl's breakdown of the course over Ward's...maybe because Biehl seems to be more removed from who the architect is and what he has done past or present.  I mean the ultimate goal is to question the design and determine if it is something worth praise even if designed by JJ from Good times or Chris Farley.

Did the course fit the land seems from many that it didn't, was it a typical make money and run design...dont know...I have played and visited a few Rees Jones designs and  can say I feel comfortable imaging in my mind a typical Rees bunker or green....but not which associate or contractor that maybe designed or bulit it.

I guess when it comes down to it who cares who designed it or what they have done...I just want to know if the design merits a play or a viewing for quality design details.

[TEPaul]

I think photographs of Nantucket G.C. should be posted again and even compared to any other photos of any other course anyone would like to compare them to.

So what if a knockdown drag out fight ensued 18 months ago? There's nothing wrong with analyzing photographs of golf courses, individually or comparatively, despite the fact that Pat Mucci might tell us that what we're seeing in the photographs may be absolutely nothing like what we may see when we play the golf course!

If there's a scintilla of truth in a remark like Pat's then when we do play the golf course we can come back on here and say; "Well, that golf course looked absolutely nothing whatsoever like those photographs!"

But somehow I can't see something that illogical happening!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You've forgotten the comments based on the aerial photo of Boca Rio, comments that were substantially off the mark.

Commenting on pictures of a golf course can only provide a limited assessment of that course, and the conclusions drawn are tenuous at best.  

YOU MUST PLAY TO ASSAY !

I do not believe any one is qualified to pass on the merits of
any one hole, let alone eighteen holes, unless he has played
them under all the varying conditions possible..

Does everyone agree or disagree with this statement ?

[TEPaul]

"YOU MUST PLAY TO ASSAY"

Whatever you say Patrick "Johnny Cochran" Mucci!

I know what you believe and let me be the first to register my disagreement with you about photographs.

Of course, any rational person who has some understanding of architecture must admit that it's clearly better to "assay" golf architecture by playing it rather than looking at photographs but if you're saying, as you appear to be, that looking at photos of a golf course or its holes is absolutely meaningless and worthless in assaying architecture, then, again, let me be the first to register my disagreement with you.

Of course it's probably true too that if someone has very little idea what to look for in either a photograph or while playing a golf course then assaying architecture is probably meaningless with either.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You've called for an agree or disagree vote on your belief that one must play to assay and at the moment there are two votes registered disagreeing either in part or in whole about your belief.

Therefore in the time honored baseball analogy that all red-blooded Americans that believe in Flag, Mom and apple pie subscribe to--three strikes and you're out--one more vote of disagreement should effectively destroy the credibility of your architectural opinions once and for all!

Who wants to be the one to deliver the coup de grace to Patrick? Or maybe he's offering his hand and we should take it and offer to educate him in the beauties of photographic architectural analysis this one last time. Or should we just let him slip into the abyss of blindness to photographic architectural analysis forever?

Are you out there Tom MacWood? How about you Rees, I know you look in on Golfclubatlas occasionally although you did say generally in disgust? But it's not so bad here really and I bet you believe in photographic architectural analysis.

Or how about you, Tom Fazio? I've heard from unimpeachable sources that you look in on this site occasionally too. And it would be completely logical that you should deliver the coup de grace to Patrick since you're the one who has said many times that in golf architecture a picture is worth a thousand words!

[Mike_Cirba]

Did I hear someone calling my name?  

Nevermind...must have been the wind whistling through the gaps in those natural mounds on the Nantucket heathland.  

Actually, photographic evidence aside, I thought the more interesting and possibly controversial of Patrick's statements was the following;

"I do not believe any one is qualified to pass on the merits of
any one hole, let alone eighteen holes, unless he has played
them under all the varying conditions possible.."

I think that's a pretty strong statement, and would like to hear if other's agree.  

For my part, I would agree that it would be ideal to play every hole in every conceivable season, wind direction, turf hydration point, etc., but we would also have very little to discuss here.  I don't know that I can think of any bad, ugly, or boring holes I've played that have become markedly better with repeated playing, but perhaps I'm not thinking deep enough.

[TEPaul]

Well, you're thinking a lot deeper than Patrick is MikeC and that's it--three pitches--three strikes and his "You have to play to assay" pronouncment is out, over and done with! Matter of fact it's deadier than the fifty year demise of the stymie!

[Patrick Mucci Jr]

Shivas,

So if the wind was blowing in its non-prevailing direction, and at its non prevailing velocity, you think your observations would be sufficient to analyze the course and its individual holes ?

Do you want to amend your statement ?  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Who commented on Boca Rio based on aerials and what did they say that was off the mark?

There are no absolute rules regarding passing judgement or making informed statements - there is no formula. I do not object to anyone analyzing a photograph. I don't think it is wise to render an informed judgement of an entire golf course through photographs - but that happens rarely. But commenting on a photograph or analyzing a photograph is not rendering a judgement on an entire golf course. I've enjoyed when Pat has commented and analyzed what he found appealing or unappealing in photos (even when he had never played the hole) and if its good enough for Pat, it should be good enough for the rest of us.

[Patrick Mucci Jr]

TEPaul,

Let me repeat, "you must play to assay".

Don't sidetrack the discussion by offering extreme positions I never advocated.

I REPEAT,

" I do not believe any one is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone all eighteen holes, unless he has played them under all of the varying conditions possible.."

That is the sole issue.

[TEPaul]

Matt Ward:

Good answers to my questions about some of the excessive containment mounded courses (on the bodies of holes where it has no real meaning relating to golf shots) of modern architects, including much of Rees's early work. But I'm not sure that you remarked on my question about the comparison of the architecture of, say, Seth Raynor to the modern containment mounding architects, when he did it in areas only that really matter for golf and not in areas that did not matter to golf, while the modern architects did it everywhere.

From the sound of your feeling about how Rees has evolved away from that feature in some of his more recent work, it appears you believe that Rees probably agrees with your assessments of his earlier containment mounding compared to what he's doing now.

And I couldn't agree with you more that anyone should recognize that change in Rees's style and not assume that everything he's done is the same as it was in the past--particularly regarding general containment mounding.

I haven't seen Tattersal yet (except during construction) but whatever anyone might think about Tattersal they should probably not attribute it to Rees Jones. As far as I know the architect of Tattersal was Keith Evans, not Rees!

Speaking of "containment mounding" some of the photos in the past and also recently of Astoria G.C in Oregon seem to display some of the most egregious "entire hole" containment mounding I've ever seen in my life. Of course, I've never been to Astoria G.C. but I understand that many purists on here consider it a very interesting and quirky golf course despite that amazing early "containment mounding". Maybe there was a reason for it like hole proximity or narrowness but in an effort to be even-handed I can't see how anyone could criticize Rees for entire hole containment mounding and at the same time praise Astoria.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Unless I'm mistaken, (perhaps Craig, John V., Tommy, can confirm or tell me I'm full of it) those "containment mounds" at Astoria are natural sand dune features.  I believe the holes were simply laid down between them.  

[Patrick Mucci Jr]

TEPaul and Mike Cirba,

I'm thinking of playing Astoria when I go to Bandon/Pacific Dunes, what can you tell me about the golf course ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I know very little about Astoria, but John Vanderborgt is quite the expert from what I understand, and I believe Tommy Nac and Craig Edgamand are rather big fans, as well.  

I'll be really interested to hear your thoughts on all three courses when you return.

[Graham Kerr]

Patrick Mucci JR
Have you read Klein's 'Rough Meditations'? He wrote extensively about Astoria, I think it might be rated by GolfWeek. Since you are obviously a fan of Rees Jones' work may I recommend Sandpines.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Don't tell Patrick there're no rules or no formula for making informed statements and passing judgement on architecture. To Patrick there has to be rules and there must be formula to everything about architecture, or the result will lead to  randomness that leads to anarchy that leads to chaos!

Shivas:

You can't modify things with Pat!--he's a very black and white kinda guy about things to do with architecture--there is no middle ground. Actually it's not just that you have to "play to assay" to him, you now have to have played a course and all it's holes from every conceivable wind direction to even begin to think you can comment on its architecture. It's possible that Pat may not have played the 9th hole at GCGC when the wind was coming from north by northwest at exactly 15 degress which means he has not played every hole of the course from every single wind direction and consequently has no right to remark about anything to do with GCGC's architecture!

Graham Kerr:

Would you happen to be Christie's Dad? If you are, you're on the wrong thread here! You need to be over on the LPGA topic about Christie if you're looking for that scoundrel Yahoo  to whoop his ass for besmirching your daughter.

[Craig Van Egmond]

As Mike pointed out the big difference between the mounding at Astoria and what Rees does is that at Astoria it was already there, they just laid the holes down in between.

Astoria is a very cool course, probably not great architecture but is challenging and fun to play. I've not seen anything else like it, that's for sure. Definately worth playing.

JohnV has some pictures on his website, but I can't remember the URL.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

I believe Rees has tried to modify his tendency to use over-the-top mounding and although he may not have succeeded so deftly as Raynor I believe some of his newest designs are very solid layouts. Regarding Tattersall -- you're right about Keith Evans, however, last I checked Keith still works for Jones and therefore Rees gets the banner (fair or unfair).

Tom, what concerns me is when certain people have a pre-conceived idea of a "Rees Jones course" (or any architect) and then start to always begin this thinking EVEN when the architect has gone in a different direction in my opinion. I don't rate architects -- I rate courses, but I guess it's fashionable for some to think that if you defend a particular course then you must be biased in favor of a particular architect.

I've seen quite a few courses designed by Rees Jones and I believe this perspective in knowing where he was to where he is today gives me an opportunity to see how he has evolved in his style. I would hope all people, whatever their profession, evolve because in my mind that allows for growth in one's own development.

Pat M:

I agree playing a course a number of times gives the player the wherewithal to assess items beyond the initial impression. You are also quite correct that a wind blowing one day may unduly influence opinions (good and bad) on the merits of a facility. A case in point being Pac Dunes. I played the course last August with a typical northerly summer wind -- would like to see how the course plays in the offseason when the wind switches the other way out of the south. That doesn't mean the course would be less in my mind because the wind did one thing one time and other on the return visit.

I think the best way to understand any course is certainly by actually playing it. You can glean certain things from photos but BEING THERE AND ACTUALLY PLAYING SHOTS for me is the only way to know for sure. Watching others play a hole does help but I want to know PERSONALLY from my experience.

Pat how many times would it take to really get the "beat"
on a course? 5 times? 10 times? 100 times? I agree with Mike C -- you can understand certain things fairly quickly in most cases. In my mind, return visits usually reaffirm your initial impressions in most cases.

Steven Biehl / RC Stanfield:

It would help me greatly if both of you would list five or ten new courses that have opened in say the last ten years you have played that each of you believes is better than Nantucket by any standard you believe is appropriate. A quick one or two sentence rationale would also be helpful if you could add. Thanks!

Also, for Mr. Stanfield -- can you name a Rees Jones course you especially liked and why?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
Exactly how would it help you for Steven and RC to list 5 to 10 new courses that have opened in the last ten years better than Nanucket. I can help you, not everyone shares your tastes in golf architecture. Its no big deal, they have different opinion of Nantucket - to each his own. No need to check their credentials.

I always enjoy getting your perspective on courses because you see so many, but your tastes are quite different than mine and that wouldn't change if you saw ten courses a year or a thousand. Everyone looks at these things from their own  unique perspective and no one has market cornered on opinions. I always find it more useful when people explain why they like or don't like a feature or golf course or an architect, rather than explaining why their opinion is important. Everyone understands and respects your qualifications, but that doesn't mean they will always agree with your opinions.

I wish we could avoid any critique of a Rees Jones course or any critic of a Rees Jones course being painted as a closed minded attack on every golf course that Rees ever designed. This thread started as question about Nantucket and as usual Pat Mucci has turned it into thread about photographic evaluations??? and Matt Ward has turned into a thread about Rees's entire portfolio and those who conspire against him???.



The odd thing is no one said they did not like the course and certainly no one could argue that it isn't a lovely spot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul and Tom MacWood,

Analyzing photos is just that, analyzing photos, but to assess a golf course intelligently, with credibility, one must play it, preferably on numerous occassions under a variety of conditions.  Anything short of playing the course under a variety of conditions will yield an incomplete analysis, and looking at photos in an attempt at analyzing a GOLF COURSE
will not yield enough to allow a credible assessment.

I must have seen pictures, tapes and television broadcasts of
Augusta a thousand times before I played the golf course, and nothing I saw adequately prepared me for what I experienced when I actually played the golf course.

So, look at all the pictures you want, it is light years removed from the experience and data base gained, and the conclusions drawn, from playing the golf course.
 
TEPaul,

Have you read "Scotland's Gift" by Charles Blair MacDonald ?

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

Matt-

As for choosing a course that I like better than Nantucket, all I an say is that is impossible since I have yet to see or play the course...whichever is the "appropriate" way to soak in the architecture of the course.

As for a Rees Jones design that I have played:

I have played the Greystone Course in Birmingham with the zoysia fwys and it was ironically built for the Brnos which is currently plyed on the Cupp design.  There were some interesting holes but for the most part you could tell that he pushed dirt up to create fwys and in some areas you could tell by the treesbeing several feet below original grade.  I will give credit on the par 3's...which the second hole is a par 3 that plays over a large pond with the green tilting to front right.  Plus the way the ball sat on the zoysia was real different from growing up with bermuda fwys...felt like walking on carpet...except I would not want to walk the course when all the lovely cart paths signaled me to the next golf hole...with all the fans near the greens to keep the bent grass alive.  Although he did find a way to get a few tunnels under roads.  It has been awhile so hole numbers are fuzzy but #9 had the built up fwy with a nice creek that could have been displayed...but maybe the terrible man made fountain/lagoon/waterfall near putting green and goofy #18 finishing hole was all the feature needed...Par 3's thumbs up...and the bunkering was decent.

Ocean Forrest- Nice layout...may not be able to comment since I have not played the course only got to see the course.  On the other side of the island sits a Plantation Course design that just sits there with no identity whatsoever.

I guess thatswhere I heading with Jones work in the limited vacinity that I viewed....its all playable and comfortable...but it just doesn't remain with me the next day as a great memory of golf.  Although I have not played or seen the portfolio that you have and I am not gonna judge him mainly on what I have seen...I just dont care to spend the money on what he has to offer in my area of the south...but I will never turn a game down when a friend invites me to play any course.

Reynolds Plantation Ritz course....visited during construction and thought that the layout was nice...like the bunkering better than Bham...the sod was new and the aesthitics with creeks etc were super charged for beauty more than strategy.

I am not really trying to dog Rees Jones nor did I imply that in my previous reply...I was agreeing that it seemed as if you were blinded by a bias for Rees and maybe that's your thing to rate courses on the designers past into the present.  Heck for me I think Rees is just another designer making a living, do I think he's great...its not my say, only time will tell.

The only point I was agreeing with or pointing towards was that to critique a course, should not entail the designer...until it is time to compare other works in case I buy what your talking about.  But to make it clear I still get caught up in overrating courses because exclusvity, major tournament holders, etc maybe because I rarely get the chance to play that style of course...but I can't remember going hey I played Jack Nicklaus' Shoal Creek, or Fazio's Old Overton.

I hope I answered your question for me and I didn't mean to ramble because most of what I have seen has been in the last couple of years and many Rees courses I have not played, maybe somebody could send me some pictures...doah didnt mean to pour gas on that fire.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
How does an architect evaluate or choose between two possible holes he drawn on paper. Would you suggest he build the first alternative play it and then build the second alternative and play it before renderring a desicion? Why have you evaluated holes (and rendered judgements of holes) that you've never played and only seen in photographs? Isn't that somewhat hypocritical?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Who is he drawing it on paper for, himself, the construction crew, the owner or members.  I tend to think that the architect has visualized the hole in his mind and only needs paper to communicate with others.

If you could cite me specific examples where I analyzed a HOLE or COURSE based soley on pictures, without any caveats I'd appreciate it.  If asked to evaluate a PICTURE, and not the course, I'm sure I may have done that, but that is not the same as looking at some random pictures and making a broad based critical evaluation of a golf course.

Since your inference is that I have been hypocritcal, I would appreciate a prompt response, to set the record straight.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Architects often create numerous routings or alternatives for specific holes, and this before submitting any plan to anyone. How do they evaluate these holes without playing them?

Have you played the old 12th GCGC? You seem to be very fond of it based on what you've seen in photographs.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()