GD article on Sebonac

[McCloskey]

It appeared to me that Whitten didn't give JN much credit for any of the design at Sebonac.  Did you guys get the same impression?  That is not exactly how I heard it happened, but I would like to learn what others might know.

[JWL]

Mc
I just read the article and I wouldn't necessarily agree that the article slighted JN.    There were a few minor points I wouldn't agree with, but overall it seemed pretty fair.
The most glaring omission was failing to acknowledge Chris Rule, a JN design associate, who spent more time on the site  than anyone else from either firm.  I thought that was a major oversight.

[Carlyle Rood]

Would this be the December issue?

C

[Bill Gayne]

I thought it was fair and balanced to both sides. Most of the article focused on how Doak, Nicklaus, staffs, and owner all worked together. I guess it's similar to People Magazine in that readers are more interested in the personalties and how they interacted. I would have rather seen/read more about the actual golf course. The pictures were all aerials and there were only three or four of them.  Not nearly enough and none on the ground.

There was reference and contrast to the neighboring courses but that seemed to mostly focus on how much the courses cost to join.

I want to learn more about the golf course than GD offered and I suspect the best avenue for that will probably be the eventual posting of pics on this website.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Jim L - I have heard reports that the JN and RGD teams got along remarkably well.  If Rule was a principal on-site rep of the JN team I agree - he should have been more recognized.

JC

[JWL]

Jonathan
I can only speak for our team, but the answer to that question would be yes.   And Chris Rule was the on site design associate for ND at Sebonack and he did a terrific job.
It was a real pleasure to work with Tom, Jim and all the shapers.

[A_Clay_Man]

Ever since Doak requested everyone NOT to speculate who did what work at Sebonack, I was impressed how most respected that request.

What does it say about Whitten, when he brings it up first thing?

Who cares who did what, is the finished product all it could be?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

I disagree.

I think it's important to know who did what.

In surgery, marriage, business and golf course architecture.

Our system is geared to reward excellence in performance, and recognition is but one of those rewards.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Jim - look forward to the end product.  Will you play on the opening day?  If so TD hasn't a chance and in fact JN will be hard pressed to best you!!  I know, I've played with you!

JC

[JWL]

Jonathan
No, I don't think I will be playing on opening day, but  I will be there to enjoy the day for sure.   You are too kind in your reference to my game.   It is getting old and I feel it more everyday.   My daddy told me golf is like shaving...if you don't do it everyday, you look like a bum!   That is what I feel like on the course these days.

[TEPaul]

I haven't seen the Golf Digest article by Ron Whitten. However, I agree with Pat---there always will be people who'll want to know who did what between the Nicklaus and Doak organization, not the least reason being it certainly is an unusual collaboration or partnership or whatever they're calling it.

I'll tell you one certain fact though since it doesn't seem to be something that anyone involved wants to keep secret and that is the routing of Sebonack is totally Doak. Not just that but basically it came right off a topo basically before Doak did much in the way of studying the land. Mike Pascucci stood right there and mentioned that fact a couple of times to a few of us standing there speaking with him so obviously that's not something that's supposed to be a secret about Sebonack. Apparently a lot of routings came in previous to Doak's which Pascucci mentioned was very different from the reat and it got Mike Pascucci's attention bigtime.

[Dan Kelly]

Much as it pains me to disagree with the site's most senior Gods (obligatory smiley), I do disagree.

Mr. Nicklaus (et al.) and Mr. Doak (et al.) agreed to build this course in collaboration. They are, on this occasion, a team, presumably capable of saying both yes and no to each other -- and their collective work (not their individual contributions to that collective) is what should be seen, played, and judged.

The routing is theirs -- no matter who devised it.

The holes are theirs -- no matter who designed which of them.

The hazards are theirs -- no matter who conceived them.

The course is theirs -- no matter who contributed what.

Call me an unprofessional journalist (a quisling to my trade!), but I hope Mr. Doak and Mr. Nicklaus and all of their confederates will keep their mouths as closed as humanly possible regarding who did what.

Let you-all speculate!

[David_Madison]

It does matter who contributed what, especially if either side went "against type" from what they might ordinarily do. It also matters what each team learned from the other, especially if the joint effort turns out better than what either group could have done on its own. And if so, will either or both architects and their teams be better for it going forward and will any of the influence of the other show up in future work?  

[Paul Richards]

Very interesting article.


It will be intriguing to see how history treats the course and who ends up receiving the 'attention', if any is given to this course over time.

[TEPaul]

Dan Kelly@:

Thank God Mike Pascucci isn't a journalist!  

Between Doak and Nicklaus at Sebonack and who did what, after a time it will all come down to just one thing----who was responsible for #8? Someday, someone will get to the bottom of that, and then the history of the course can rest!  

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:  I agree that omitting Chris Rule's input was a mistake, but I think Ron was trying to focus on the principals equally ... he mentioned you and Jim Urbina a little bit, and then no one else from either side, though we both know that a lot of others made contributions.

I haven't asked Urbina to count up his days but I can't believe he spent less than Chris did.

As for who is responsible for what, I still believe that it's not productive to separate that out.  Judge the course by what's out there, not who did it ... and judge each of us as architects, if you must, by our other work and not by trying to pick apart Sebonack.

Or, you can read the question-and-answer piece that Jack and I are putting together for Neil Crafter's next annual SAGCA Journal.  [How's that for a plug, Neil?]

[JWL]

TD
I think you know that I am full agreement with all that you said.   BTW, any chance I am going to get that reply you postponed while on your Dunhill trip?   LOL

[Paul Richards]

Tom

>As for who is responsible for what, I still believe that it's not productive to separate that out.


I'm sorry, but I disagree with you here.

Most everyone counts Harbour Town as a Pete Dye course.  This despite Jack Nicklaus' 'involvement.'  

It will be interesting to see how Sebanack is treated by history as far as its architect is concerned ....

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

Both Jack and I will get a share of credit for Sebonack.  If it changes over time, it's because of people's perception of us and because of what else we have done in our careers, NOT because of our contribution to Sebonack, which no one else understands except us and a handful of people who were involved [all of whom are highly biased].

It will only really be important if Sebonack becomes the most important and respected course that either of us has done ... and if that happens, then it will be because we both contributed.  If not, then we will be judged by our other best work.

[PThomas]

  re Harbour Town, it's important to note that it was JACK who got asked to do the course, he then asked for Pete's help

[Dan Kelly]

Doak and Nicklaus -- the Tillinghast and Burbeck of the 21st century!

Or is that the Burbeck and Tillinghast?

[Mike Hendren]

It seems that EVERYTHING in today's world devolves into "us versus them."  

Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mr. Nicklaus (et al.) and Mr. Doak (et al.) agreed to build this course in collaboration. They are, on this occasion, a team, presumably capable of saying both yes and no to each other -- and their collective work (not their individual contributions to that collective) is what should be seen, played, and judged.


What if your underlying premise is incorrect ?[/color]

The routing is theirs -- no matter who devised it.
The holes are theirs -- no matter who designed which of them.
The hazards are theirs -- no matter who conceived them.
The course is theirs -- no matter who contributed what.

That's more of a political, rather than an architectural  statement.[/color]

Call me an unprofessional journalist (a quisling to my trade!), but I hope Mr. Doak and Mr. Nicklaus and all of their confederates will keep their mouths as closed as humanly possible regarding who did what.

It's understandable for parties in a joint venture to present a unified front.  I happen to agree with the concept.
But, It's also interesting to know where good ideas come from.
They don't reside solely in the brain of the big name architect.

Bill Coore told an interesting story with respect to the creation of the centerline bunker on # 8 at Hidden Creek.
He clearly indicated that it wasn't his idea, but rather, a concept some of his staff came up with.

He didn't feel any less accomplished because one or more of his staff had a great idea.  Collaboration has produced some of the great golf courses of the world.

In an informative, rather than a critical context, it would be interesting to know how various features came into being.

A journalist who wants to stamp "classified" and/or "top secret" on an issue or project, has lost his objectivity in favor of cuddling up to the parties involved.[/color]

Let you-all speculate!

For an individual who declares that he wants to learn more about architecture, to have more light shone on the subjects, why would you promote being kept in the dark ?[/color]

[JESII]

Our system is geared to reward excellence in performance, and recognition is but one of those rewards.

But why, when at least one of the two collaborators does not want to, do you feel it important to segregate their individual contributions?

Has anyone asked Tom Doak about a specific feature on the course, and how it came to be? He seems pretty open and therefore just might shed light on the evolution of Sebonac in a more helpful, educational way than simply claiming responsibility for X% of the design as some seem to want.

[A.G._Crockett]

If we assume that it was a full collaboration (and I know of no reason not to), then who did what is a completely unanswerable question, isn't it?  Shouldn't the work be viewed as a collaboration and evaluated accordingly?

"Influences" could be talked about, and specific features on particular holes could be "attributed" but unless they flipped a coin in advance for even holes vs. odd holes, there would be no way to assign credit.  The idea was always to have a blend anyway, wasn't it?