[A_Clay_Man]

How many courses does the University currently have?

Do they play their NCAA matches on the Scarlet?

If not, why the need to modernize?

If so, why the need to modernize?

With other "Big Ten" resto's having gone to alums, asking important questions now, seems so much less wasteful, than later.

Beside, whe it's all over, how else can us "guys" say "I told ya so"

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Tom S.  I am not sure what my petty jealously is, but I think you misunderstood some of my post, and understood other parts.  I respectfully disagree that the ultimate work will be that of Jack and Gary.  Yes, they may give direction, but will they be on the bulldozer to or will they rake the final contours of the greens?  I doubt it.  The day-to-day input will come from the head guy on site, assuming he is on site.  His background seems to lend much expertise on construction, but I didn't see anything on restoration.  Perhaps through your experience, even with stakes, the shapers make minor changes or input their personal interpretation of what the design firm wants.
Further you seem supremely confident that if the University desires a restoration, then that is exactly what Jack and Gary will give them.  I question this, only because of the Nicklaus design firm's inexperience in true restorations.
I appreciate you posting and responding.  This means you have interest in discussion of golf course architecture from the past.  Call it a petty jealously if you will, but I was a first hand witness to the dismantling of some holes of a great course, Riviera, by a design firm who will little interest or experience in restoration, and little interest in learning about it.  Modernizing is just something that doesn't interest me in golf course architecture, and I am suspicous and frustrated by folks who sell themselves as restorers, when they only put their personal thoughts on a design of a past architect.
For further info on this read "Beware the Restorer" on Tom Doak's design website.

[McCloskey]

LynnS
Just curious about your double standard.
You questioned whether Jack would actually be the person in charge of the OSU "restoration", by saying that you doubted whether he actually would be on the bulldozer or raking the final contours in the greens.   Why is Jack put to that standard whereas Mckenzie, who is given the credit for designing Scarlet never even made "one visit" to the site during construction.    Who was McKenzie's bulldozer operator and soil raker?  By your standard, shouldn't he be the designer of the course?   Also curious, how many hours do you think Doak spent on the McKenzie restorations he worked on, or how many hours did he have a rake in his hand.   For some reason you have no problem giving him credit for the restorations.   Am I missing something, or is this a baltant double standard?
BYW, my sources say that Jack's fee was $1.   But then again, you didn't do your research did you when you questioned his fee.

[Tom_Doak]

Mr. McCloskey:

You are right in the first part of your post, that MacKenzie wasn't around at Ohio State at all, and of course Jack Nicklaus has already spent way more time there than any of us, as an undergraduate golfer.

As to the "double standard" in your second part, though, while I readily agree that my associate Jim Urbina has spent more time on-site at Pasatiempo and The Valley Club than I have, I think I've spent a good bit of time at each of them ... probably a total of 20 days at each over the past 5-6 years.  Usually I have old photos in my hands, but I've used a rake for more hours than I've used my golf clubs.  I'm pretty sure I've spent more time at The Valley Club than Dr. MacKenzie did, though not of course at Pasatiempo.

[McCloskey]

Mr Doak
Please don't read anything about you in that post of mine.   It was merely to point out that LynnS's standards were not fair to all parties.  I don't doubt for a second that you spent considerable amount of time on all of your work.   I would also readily believe that you had a rake in your hands on more than one occasion.  I don't know about the bulldozer, but since you didn't mention it, I must assume that you leave that to others.   My point is that you certainly deserve the credit you have received for your restoration work without adhering to LynnS's standards.   I was only questioning why Nicklaus was being held to a different standard, and according to LynnS, that he wouldn't be making the decisions unless he was dozing or raking.  I thought that was improper, and said so.   It was by no means reflective of how you perform your excellent work.

[TEPaul]

McCloskey:

You have to understand something about Lynn's post. It may not be a double standard at all. Just look at JackN---does he look like a bulldozer kind of guy? You bet he does. Now, if anyone was stupid enough to put Alister Mackenzie on a bulldozer, then I just don't know about the common sense of that. That might not be much different than putting A.W. Tillinghast on a bulldozer----definitely a very poor idea. Tillie was much better on his shooting-stick waving orders with one hand and nipping from his flask on the other.

Tom Doak on a bulldozer? That one's a puzzler! It seems to me even Tom has expressed his own reservations on that score! Can you imagine that little dandy Dev Emmet on a bulldozer? That would be akin to suicide!

When you start accusing people of expressing double standards you need to look into some of what they're saying a bit more carefully!

[DMoriarty]

LynnS
Just curious about your double standard.
You questioned whether Jack would actually be the person in charge of the OSU "restoration", by saying that you doubted whether he actually would be on the bulldozer or raking the final contours in the greens.   Why is Jack put to that standard whereas Mckenzie, who is given the credit for designing Scarlet never even made "one visit" to the site during construction.    Who was McKenzie's bulldozer operator and soil raker?  By your standard, shouldn't he be the designer of the course?   Also curious, how many hours do you think Doak spent on the McKenzie restorations he worked on, or how many hours did he have a rake in his hand.   For some reason you have no problem giving him credit for the restorations.   Am I missing something, or is this a baltant double standard?
BYW, my sources say that Jack's fee was $1.   But then again, you didn't do your research did you when you questioned his fee.

Once again, the significant but ignored factor is that this is a "restoration" (--JN) not a new course and not a renovation.   How on earth could someone restore a course without being directly involved in the detail work?    . . . .

As for the fee, it is terrific if the rumors you heard are correct.  But Lynn never said that JN was making his normal fee.  Rather he said he should take a reduced one.  It seems that JN and Lynn are on the same page.  

Comparing Jim Urbina to JN's army of design associates is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?  Interesting you could name the likely person doing the shaping on a Doak restoration.  Can you do the same for a JN restoration?

I've a feeling that with a Doak/Urbina restoration, Lynn would discuss Mr. Urbina's work.
 
Question:  On JN's restorations, who does the shaping?  JN's people or contracted help?  
_____________________

A while back Tom Soileau described JN's involvement in his designs.   It would be very informative if he or someone would do the same for JN's restorations, assuming there is a difference.  

[McCloskey]

Dmoriarty
I was only responding to LynnS statement that Nicklaus wasn't going to ride a dozer or handle a rake, and therefore shouldn't be thought of as the one in charge of the restoration.   I said that that standard wasn't being applied to anyone but Nicklaus, not even to Doak, who was brought up as doing McKenzie restorations.   Doak doesn't ride a dozer, just like Jack, but LynnS had no problem giving him credit for the restorations, rather than his associates.
I also don't know where you got the idea that I named the likely person doing the shaping on a Doak restoration.  You need to reread the posts.   I don't have any idea who that person might be.   I certainly didn't bring Urbina's name into this thread, nor did I compare him to anyone at Nicklaus firm.   Where did you get that impression?
Eckstein
No, not at all.  I do respect Nicklaus' work on the whole, just like I do Doak and C&C, among others.   I just don't think Nicklaus gets the benefit of the doubt on this board most of the time.   If you read all the posts about Nicklaus, I think you would have to agree with me on that.   I doubt if he is too concerned about it though.  

[DMoriarty]

At your suggestion I did reread and I apologize for falsely crediting you with bringing up Mr. Urbina.   I guess I just assumed that anyone who would post about their practice would have some idea how they worked.  My mistake.

Perhaps you might have taken a closer look at how Doak (doakgolf.com) and other real restoration designers approaations before assuming that some posters are off-base for not giving the benefit of the doubt to Nicklaus designs.  

But this is easy enough to straighten out.   If someone would be kind enough to explain how Nicklaus Design restores courses, we can clear up these misunderstandings.

[McCloskey]

DM
I think you comment about looking at "real restoration designers" says it all.
I don't know what Nicklaus' record is involving restorations, but I do know that all of the above had no restoration record until they accomplished their first.  Were they called "real" before that?
I am just wondering why some are prejudging the work before it evens happens.   None of above were prejudged as being incapable, were they?

[McCloskey]

What can I say?  I like most of his courses, especially over the past 10 years.  I am not thrilled with some of his work in the early 80's.  I try to play some of the best new courses and I have done so for numerous years.   I have played all of those courses by Nicklaus and several more that were not mentioned.   I don't limit my play to just Nicklaus however, and I do try to travel a lot and play new courses whenever I can .   I enjoy a lot of different types of courses.
I do have a couple of friends that have worked for Nicklaus in the past.   They still speak highly of the man.  

[DMoriarty]

-- I figured you'd like that phrase.  The 'real' refers to the restoration, not the designer.  

--  No, if someone has no track record of restoration work, then it would be premature to call them real restoration designers.   At best one might be able to get a feel for how they approach restoration work by taking a look at how they approach the rest of their work.

--  I dont see much premature bashing of the final product.  But I do see quite a few posts raising questions about whether the Nicklaus Design general approach is conducive to producuing a sympathetic restoration.  Appropriate questions, if you ask me.  

--  Let me get this straight . . .  You know nothing about either restoration operation, yet you saw fit to charge a double standard?  Don't you need to know who merits what treatment before judging that treatment?

[Lynn_Shackelford]

McCloskey a few clarifications.

Doak can and has worked on a bulldozer.  Probably less so in 2004 than in the past.

No, double standard with Nicklaus and Mackenzie.  While not on site much, or in Mackenzie's case at OSU not at all, they are the architects of record.  My original point was merely this:
THE DESIGN ASSOCIATE ON SITE WILL HAVE MAJOR INFLUENCE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE RESTORATION OR RENOVATION, WHATEVER IT IS.

I never said it was awful for Jack to take a big fee.  I said as an alumnus, it would be appropriate or not surprising, for him to work for $1.  I am glad to hear that is the case.

I think Nicklaus is a fine man, a great player who has done much good for the game.  I also don't care much for his design work.  That is my right, as it is yours to defend him.  In addition I think he has helped create the high end project, often at the encouragement of his clients.  This hasn't helped "grow the game" but it is his right to do as he pleases.
I just get frustrated at someone who is so insightful, so knowledgeable, so respectful of the past traditions, yet keeps building $15 million dollar deals.
It is his and Gary's project in the end, but please don't deny that the on site guy will not be a major influence, that is all I am saying.
If you play so many Nicklaus courses, and learned which design associates did which, I think you would see a pattern.  For example many of Cupp's courses today look like early Nicklaus courses.  Cupp used to be an associate of Nicklaus desgins.  Thus a major influence.

[BCrosby]

A letter to OSU.

Sirs,

You have a golf course routed by the greatest golf course architect of all time. It would be a shame to waste that OSU asset.

You have hired Nicklaus's design group to redo the course. I hope you will ask him to do so in the spirit of Dr. MacKenzie.

That does not mean the final product will be the course MacK would have built. We have no way of knowing what MacK would have built. But the final product should be sympathetic to the origins of the course.

What does "sympathetic" mean? It means that after careful historical research Nicklaus will attempt to redo the course in a way that MacK might acknowledge as his. (We want to be helpful here, so may we suggest you contact this guy who lives in Columbus for historical materials? He has already done Nicklaus's homework. [Insert Tom MacWood's phone number here.])

Think of it as Nicklaus on a theme by MacKenzie.

Lest the Nicklaus group be offended by this suggestion, I would remind you that any number of great artists have based their work on that of their predecessors. Mozart and Mendelssohn borrowed from Bach. Brahms from Haydn. All quite explicitly and openly. And no one thought the worse of Mozart, Mendelssohn or Brahms. In fact, quite the contrary.

The point is that OSU should give the Nicklaus Group a goal. Something fairly concrete to aspire to. Something more than just designing a good golf course. That goal should be to design something that ties back to the origins of the OSU course.

BTW, did I mention that Woody Hayes was a great American?

Sincerely,

Bob

P.S. Did I mention that Woody Hayes got a bad rap?  

[Mike Benham]

Based in North Palm Beach, Fla., Nicklaus Design is recognized as the world leader in golf course design. [/i]The firm has 275 courses open for play in 27 countries and 36 states. Jack Nicklaus has been involved in 230 of those projects.

Slight thread-jacking, but it the above a true statement?

Any idea how many renovations, restorations his firm has done?

I hate to quote my self (is that even legal?) but does anyone know how many restorations, renovations the JN group has done?

And what will/can $ 1.2 million buy?  What can one expect be done for $ 1.2 million?

[patrick_burton]

Mike -

I think the begining of the post stated that the renovation was to mainly just be "bunker" renovation (ie: altering their shape and installing drainage) and "studying" future green/tee alterations - so, a million bucks can definately handle the begining phase of the renovation - even though, i believe this will be a prevailing wage job.

-jj

[DMoriarty]

Thought I'd pull this back up in the hope that some of the unanswered questions would be answered . . .

Tom Soileau, you mentioned you were going to call the main design associate on this project to find out more.   Do you have any new information?

Can anyone familiar with the Nicklaus approach to restoring golf courses?   Something like Mr. Soileau's informative description of the Niclaus' approach to new course design a while back would be great.

Are there any examples out there of Nicklaus restorations of Pre-WWII courses?

Thanks in advance.  

[Tom Soileau]

Gentlemen,

Greg Letsche has been on an extended trip out of the country and I haven't been able to speak with him as of yet.  I will report more when I learn more.  Sorry.

[Tom Soileau]

After my last post, I tried Greg again and he was back in the office.  He told me that he and Jack were going back up in a week or two to take a look at the course again.  He said that the request was to modernize the course from a length and strategic standpoint.  Currently, everyone is simply hitting the ball over most of the strategy.  He said he had MacKenzie's original routings for the Scarlet and Gray courses which has some of the strategy on them.  He also has pictures from the early 40's showing the bunker style at that time.  He said that he didn't know what or if they would do to the greens, that he and Jack where going to be looking at that on their next site visit.  He said that the pictures from the 40's shows that there were no trees and it was basically a field and that over time some of the original strategy has been lost due to tree growth.  He said some trees may be removed to restore some of the original strategy which was lost.  He said that they have talked about reintroducing fescues.  

I asked him if any one at OSU mentioned Tom MacWood to him and he said no.  I asked if he would be open to speaking with Tom and he said he would love to hear from him and welcome any input he might have that would help in achieving the goals set forth by OSU.  Tom, send me a instant message and I will get you Greg's email address.  

[TEPaul]

I think that's terrific. Tom MacW, let's see what you can do if you get involved in a restoration project on a course you really do know! If you do get involved in some capacity, I think you're going to really learn a lot!  

Thanks for all that information TomS.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Tom S.
Very positive post.  Thanks for the information.  Any tree removal at any course is music to my ears.  It is a shame courses must address "today's" game and length, but if OSU wants major events they have to.  Let's hope drives aren't going 375 yards in six years.
Also nice to pass along the Tom MacWood interest.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()