While I've been gone ...

[Mike_Young]

It is amazing to me how much this site knows about Nicklaus and how much time he spends toward designs.  24,000,000 golfers and only 1500 really care to discuss golf design.  Fact is most golfers rate a golf course by the quality of the greens. And most would love to play a nicklaus course everyday. You might not like that answer but that is how it works.  It is very frustrating to admit such as an architect but that is what you have to accept to survive in this business.  Golf architecture on this site is an idealistic pursuit.  But for most of us it is  practiced in a realistic world.  
I just don't see anything being gained here by voicing opinions of who is the better architect whether it be Ted McAnliis, Tom Doak, McKenzie or Nicklaus.  It will always be opinion.

[Doug Siebert]

I find it interesting that no one has touched Tom's comment about how deep down the people saying Nicklaus has nothing to offer to the design believe that they could make contributions themselves were they given the chance.  A bit too close to the truth for the armchair architects of GCA to want to think about?

[David Kelly]

Mike Young,

We do know how much time Nicklaus spends on his design work.  He advertises it to prospective clients when they are deciding on what level of design package they want to purchase.

According to the Nicklaus Design website Nicklaus has to his credit 184 solo designs, 25 co-designs, and 10 redesigns.  

So if he averages 4 site visits per course (and I may be over estimating by one or two) then that is a lot of time spent on his design work.  And thats not even counting the advertised one meeting a week with his design team.  [/SARCASM]

[Matt_Sullivan]

I find the criticism of Jack's design methodology a little disingenuous. So he doesn't spend a lot of time at the sites. Neither always did the good Doctor McKenzie, at least in Australia and New Zealand; neither did Donald Ross.

Presumably Jack has a team of people who understand his design philosophy, and perform the design and construction in accordance with this. And it seems that Jack discloses to his clients exactly how much of his personal time and effort goes into each design. So he's not "fooling" the client in any way. They know exactly what they're getting: a "Nicklaus" course designed and constructed in accordance with Jack's style and philosophy with an agreed amount of input by one of the greatest golfers ever

An architect's constant presence at the course during design and construction will create a course that closely aligns with the architects intention and probably makes better use of available natural features and so forth. But it won't be a "Nicklaus" course (or a "Palmer" course or a "Norman" course etc) and the owner/developer gets to choose which type of course he would prefer. There is clearly a market for "famous player" or signature courses, just as there is a market for other types of (better? different?purer? cheaper? truer? -- pick your adjective) courses. It seems somewhat futile to rage against this state of affairs.

[Mike_Young]

David  K,
I stand by what I said above but it is nice to see someone admit that JN spends more time than some of the old "masters" such as Ross etc..

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mike I do agree with the nature of this site relative to the golfing public at large. I also agree about most loving the idea of a Jack course and greens as well.  As to the Doak note on the many indicating Jack has little to offer. I feel that is not the case. Jack is obviously among the tops in this profession which is different than the profession he dominated for 25 years. I just do not like his work as much as many others at the top or the architecture profession which are discussed on here. It would be silly and amateuristic to feel we are anywhere near his equal in this field. However, I do feel many on here bring a passion and a thirst for knowledge to this area that deserves note and respect by those in the architecture profession.

[Mike_Young]

John,
I agree that there is a passion and thirst for knowledge on this site that should be recognized by the architecture profession however this site also needs to recognize that there is much more to the architecture profession.  This site tends to look at the "glamour side".  If you consider the courses discussed on this site you know they make up a very small percentage of the overall golf market.  Their effect on proshop sales, maintenance equipment sales and rounds of golf played are miniscule.  For example:  In the golf equipment business Knight golf, whom many have never heard of, uses more true temper shafts and golfpride grips than any of the so called "known manufacturers.  they sell to Walmarty and K mart etc.  But I guarantee you they know the club business.  
I really don't think this site cares to understand the architecture business "in the trenches"  .....it just wouldn't be of interest to them.  

[Bill_McBride]

Mike, I would agree with your last 100% except that I think many who participate in this site are directly involved in the industry as architects, superintendents, owners, managers -- probably not as many as the passionate dilletantes like me, but it seems there are many.  So it's not easy to generalize about the "typical" GCA participant.  Many have a great deal of industry experience, many don't.

Having said that, I loved your Cateechee course and you know how much I love old Athens CC.  More to follow on myweekend trip through the sweaty Deep South!  I'll also be publishing more details on the Cuscowilla outing.  Thanks for your hospitality in Athens.

[Mike_Young]

Bill,
You are correct.  there are many on the site that are in the golf business.   I think most of them would agree with what I was saying.
Let me know more about your trip this past weekend.  Sorry I couldn't play with you guys.
Mike

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mike, I often feel a tug or war within myself on the subject of the courses we discuss. I just accept the fact we only really discuss courses that a fairly large number of people have played seen or at least observed on TV. I played or viewed the TPC Fairfield and Metairie CC in New Orleans friday and saturday.Then I played LeTriumphe that is home to our Nationwide Tour event sunday. I just got back from a greens committee meeting on my home club. Between those 4, almost every subject, non links, discussed on here was available and there were hours of issues to banter around. Yet, no one on here but me and a few others might have seen them. It is frustrating sometimes for the difference between Oakmont CC and Oakbourne CC is much closer than we on this site give it. I would like to think most of us do understand how much more there is to architecture than we discuss on here. When people discuss the law, they tend to discuss personalities and high profile trials. There the non glamour things like document preparation and research seem to not ever be brought up. It is the nature of man I am afraid.

[SL_Solow]

I have been following this thread and those that prompted it for some time.  While I understand that some may believe a pairing of Doak and Nicklaus is incongruous, the search for hidden motives is something that I don't understand.  From his entry into the business, Tom Doak has been a "stand -up" guy.  Early on it may have cost him a few jobs but he said what he thought more often than most.  I was fortunate enough to spend a day with Tom before he became "famous" when I asked him to evaluate our club.  He didn't pull any punches then and he hasn't pulled many on this site as a frequent contributor.  Why then do some of us question his intentions now?  Are we attempting to create artificial standards for those who "get it"?  When they do something inconsistent with our preconceived notions, will we turn on them or must we create a "spin" to justify the seemingly inconsistent act?  I have enjoyed watching Tom's career and playing his designs which I have found to be consistently outstanding.  I will wait to see how this collaboration turns out and I hope that I'll get an opportunity to play the course after it opens.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

SL, I think Tom Doak is a completely stand up guy and would never question any motives. Besides, it is his carrer and only he can make the calls on what jobs will pay the bills, improve his stature or both. I think it is nice of him and others to include us in their professional lives so we can learn and share the experiences with them.

[Mike_Young]

I have always admired how Tom has approached golf architecture.  I hope nothing I have said leads you to think differently.  I also appreciate what "signature architecture" has done for the industry.  I approach this industry just like an industry such as housing.  There is an entire range of housing prices and styles.  There is a place for all of it but most of it will never be the subject of discusson much as John Bernhart says of the law.  

[igrowgrass]

Mr. Doak said in his first post that there has already been an agreement to set aside egos for the interest in the client and the golf course.  We could play a million, what if scenarios, but what if, things got bad between the two of them, would one of them be able to bow out for the interest in the client and the property?

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I would like to know what each, Doak and Nicklaus, would like to gain or learn from this collaborative process?

We might have a chance for Tom to respond to that question, maybe he could get a response from Mr. Nicklaus.  

It just seems to me with the unusual nature of this team that each architect might feel as tough they have something to learnfrom the other.