TomD:
Interesting description of M. Pascucci's part in some of the architectural details of Sebonack. I only met the man really briefly that one time for a few minutes and even if he was pretty unguardedly forthcoming about the routing of that course the truth is most of what I talked with him about was footballer Jim Brown, not golf architecture or Sebonack. I don't have much of any idea how Mr Pascucci looks at golf architecture philosophically or conceptually but I'll tell you right now if I were Mike Pascucci at Sebonack and if I had the kind of effort and money invested in that place he has I really don't think I'd just sit there and be content to break ties on all architectural decisions made out there on site between the two collaborating architects, even if the architects are the most famous golfer of all time and you.
My sense from my standpoint is that guys like you and Jack and certainly your associates and crews have a whole lot more technical experience and knowledge about actual construction details and problem solving that way than any of us just because you do that stuff all the time and guys like MikeP and people like us don't but on conceptual opinions or even decisions to do with a golf course in certain aspects I really don't think your instincts or Jack Nicklaus's are any better than Mike Pascucci's or some of us who have no real stake in some architectural reputation. I think you know what I'm referring to with perhaps one of Pascucci's decisions, and maybe more than one or two or more.
In my opinion, having seen it, his sense on #18, for instance, for who that course will be used by most all the time is so much more on target than seemingly yours and Jack's opinion. Why do you think that is Tom? Why do you think the both of you felt one that one way and Pascucci the other?
What I'm really saying is I think far too often you professional architects seem to act with many of us like once you hang out your professional shingle you are imbued with some special knowledge of all things golf architecture and the rest really shouldn't have that much to say about it specifically to any of you or even generally. I can certainly understand why many architects over the history of architecture say that, and it's probably just because they're never that sure who they're talking to and what they know.
Look at Crump, for instance. Do you think despite the fact he started PVGC as a rank amateur in architecture he spent the rest of his time at PVGC (app five years) breaking opinion ties between so-called professional architects? You know better than that of course and so does anyone who really understands what went on there over the years in the creation of the #1 course in the world for many years now. What happened there? Did Crump suddenly become imbued with real architectural talent one day? I think you realize it just doesn't work that way.
Look Tom, we've had our differences on here and off here over the years in many ways but you've been honest and blunt over the years in many of these things, and I do appreciate that a lot, and I hope you don't get offended by what I'm saying here and hold it against me. I admire your talent and what you've done, as you know, and I surely do appreciate the tour of Sebonack a month or so ago with that group. It was very educational, in a whole lot of ways.
My hope is that guys like you, the professionals, keep telling us, the amateur but interested bystanders who're dedicated analysts what the technical things are we could not know because we're not out there every day like you are, but at the same time I really do hope more of you can listen to some of us on things like concept because I think that's where we can really help and where we can make a difference to some of you professionals who I think are too damn sensitive about one thing or another for not the great reasons for the future of architectural production. I know it's a business to you and not us, and I do know what that means but I think you're on the right track for the future as I think you know we are too basically and honest give and take between you all and some of us on here, for instance, can only help to get down the best road for the future.
Maybe I'm totally off based on Sebonack only seeing it without playing it but my sense is from looking very carefully at it that well over half that course looks to me like the "ideal maintenance meld" could be some pretty good speed "through the green" (maybe up to fifty+ yards of rollout) but when it comes to some of those greens that course is going to have to have relatively receptive greens (not just a light dent to a well struck wedge) or the "over the top" factor could hit the playabilty for almost anyone on some of those greens like a ton of bricks.
I just can't wait to see about a year of feeback on the playability of Sebonack. My sense is that golf course has the potential to be many things to many levels of golfer with not all that much of a maintenance set-up adjustment. I think that's pretty unusual in golf architecture and just might end up being Sebonack's most unique asset---real variation in playability with minimal maintenance adjustment. I think that's a very good thing. I hope my sense about that will turn out to be accurate. It sure did look like some of it is that way architecturally, even if there is enough bail-out and chipping area around some of the more intense greens.