Nicklaus on Doak

[TEPaul]

Brent:

Don't sell Pete Dye short on his vision of what a golf shot should be.

Don't forget, when Pete opened TPC Sawgrass ALL the Tour pros totally freaked out. They were saying things like his greens were like hitting to the hood of a VW. As a consequence of that the course had to be toned down.

Pete isn't into UNDERSTANDING what a Tour pro golf shot should be----Pete is into TORTURING Tour pros plain and simple and he always has been. He actually thinks it's funny.  

Pete has an interesting sense of humor. If he does another new TPC tour site course I'm going to call him up and suggest he name the place "The Le Graibe Golf & Tennis & Prison Club" and that he adopt maintenance practices on it that reflect the Bush/Cheney policies on prisoner rights.

[John_Cullum]

Some random thoughts and observations of how the best players understand various golf shots:

The best players in the world can hit the ball on three trajectories at will.

The best players work the ball on approach shots so that it falls into a cross wind. They can work it right or left at will, on the trajectory they want.

They can carry their ball past the flag and bring it back to the flag if they want to.

One of the best golf shots I ever saw was on the 14th hole of Augusta National. Greg Norman hooked his tee shot left of the pine trees into an area where there are some willow trees. He had about 175 yards to the hole. There was a willow or similar type tree in front of him about 15 yards. He surveyed the situation, pulled a pitching wedge and launched it over the tree onto the green. A 165 yard pitching wedge straight up into the sky. I watched it before my own eyes. I have no idea how anyone could possibly pull that off.

Another of the greatest shots I ever saw was by Jose Olazabal on 13 at Augusta National when he won his first green jacket. He hit his drive right into the tall pines. He had a full swing but their were trees blocking a direct line to the green. He squatted down and spent about 2 minutes carefully moving pine needles around his golf ball one by one. If he had moved his ball it would have been a penalty. I don't know how he kepy from moving that ball. It was like watching brain surgery. When he got the lie he wanted he hooded an 8 iron and hooked it out running off the slope down 50 yards short of Raes Creek in the middle of the fairway. I don't understand why it took so much effort and risk to hit a hooking 8 iron, BUT he does.

I have had a single digit handicap since I was 13. I still have alot to learn about how to hit a proper golf shot

[Mike Sweeney]

I have had a single digit handicap since I was 13. I still have alot to learn about how to hit a proper golf shot

Sarge,

After your thrashing of me at the Dixie Cup, I have two great range sessions this week and the legacy of Mike "2 on the range, 20 on the course" Sweeney continues!

I will be better prepared this winter!

[Adam Clayman]

I know it's simplistic, but the major difference I gather from the Dye-abolical and the Doak, is the proximity of absolute death, to those safer areas, tour pros aim for Thursday-Saturday.

[TEPaul]

JohnC:

You made a good point there.

If most all of us want to understand what some of the shots some very good players understand and think about you pretty much need to get very close to them (preferrably right behind them) and watch. Only then can one tell what they are like, what they understand and think about.

I can do that because I've officiated enough but if I didn't do that I'd never really understand because I sure do know I could never hit shots like that and I never have.

The additional thing is the shots hit by the Nicklaus caliber player today are remarkably different from the shots Jack hit in the prime of his career. The primary difference, in my opinion, is the golf ball is so different today than in Jack's prime.

[John_Cullum]

I have had a single digit handicap since I was 13. I still have alot to learn about how to hit a proper golf shot

Sarge,

After your thrashing of me at the Dixie Cup, I have two great range sessions this week and the legacy of Mike "2 on the range, 20 on the course" Sweeney continues!

I will be better prepared this winter!

I have no doubt that was a sandbagging setup last week. I'll need alot of work to keep from being your pigeon

[Mike Sweeney]

Back on topic. The other thing that Nicklaus comments bring into play is every golf instructor in the world. Since none can hit a ball like Tiger or Jack, clearly they cannot instruct Tiger or Jack.

It would be interesting to hear what Jack Nicklaus thought of a Mike Strantz course, but it does not appear that he cares.

[Jerry Lemons]

The collaboration thing has me amused.
I am working on my first collaboration with Lee Trevino and personally I find the insight that such an Iconic pro with such a vast understanding of shots making to be an advantage to THE COURSE.
Is collaboration not a JOINT effort working for the best outcome for the course not for the ego of the architect?
Think about the many courses from ODG that had collaborated efforts. Do we not think they worked as a team?
I personally like doing my own thing too, but I am also so realistic to know that If I get any one of you to assist me (that has some knowledge of course design) that the course will ultimately be better. Call it what you want.  This alone is why so many of us that practice GCA hang our here. I think….

Jerry

[TEPaul]

MikeS:

Before leaving the discussion of what understanding a golf shot is about with really good players vs not so good players I'd also like to mention that it has certainly been my observation that when most any golfer who isn't very good misses a shot it's going to be short to very short but when most good players miss a shot it will be long.

Those who have never hit a tour caliber player golf shot should consider very carefully what that means!  

Matter of fact, in the beginning of Jack Nicklaus's golf architecture career he got sort of fixated on that fact and he began to design greens that had a lot more trouble in the fronts and more safe areas behind.

That may've been a sop to the very good player but Jack said he did it to basically force not so good players to learn to hit enough club.

[JESII]

Jerry,

Would you agree though, that every collaboration needs some sort of tie-breaker? Either one of the parties really gets final say, or maybe the client gets to break the tie...I think Tom has mentioned that the client at Sebonack broke a tie or two during the process there...

In other words, collaboration and teamwork are great, but some one person has to make the final call, right?

[Phil Benedict]

I don't know how relevent this is but in team sports great players rarely succeed as coaches, which of course involves strategy and, to a certain extent, design (ie offensive and defensive schemes).  One of the supposed weaknesses of great players as coaches is that they don't see the game from the perspective of the average player.  Of course one of the early criticisms of Jack's architecture was that he designed courses for his own game.

[Jerry Lemons]

Jerry,

Would you agree though, that every collaboration needs some sort of tie-breaker? Either one of the parties really gets final say, or maybe the client gets to break the tie...I think Tom has mentioned that the client at Sebonack broke a tie or two during the process there...

In other words, collaboration and teamwork are great, but some one person has to make the final call, right?

Right you are, maybe the owner has to break ties and I am sure Jack and Tom may have needed more than most just because of the differing design philosophies. When Crump INVITED other to help at PV, I doubt that tiebreakers were needed.

It still has to be a team approach- to the general direction of the course as a whole. maybe a coin flip?

[JESII]

I've always thought hall of famers turned coach struggled due to a lack of communication skills...it probably ties into your "they don't see the game from the perspective of the average player"[/i] Phil, because many of the events of a game are intuitive for the greats, and not so for the rest...tough to explain what you can't put your finger on yourself...even if you do deal with it successfully.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

I collaborated with Elk once and played the grand opening, so it might have been my comments, or maybe not. I always grill Tour pros for how they think but Elk was so funny.  No matter what the situation confronting him on the grand opening round, he said his strategy was to "hit it straight."

Trevino and Litske play for their fades.  Nelson and Wadkins for their draws (although Lanny says when his game was top notch, he would hit different shots)

Colbert - ever the grinder - was the golfer who tried to hit the "proper" shot the most to enhance his chances for success.  And he influences my design philosophy (although back to the collaboration point, I have to admit that we sometimes laugh that "we're glad Jim isn't on this project" when we want to do something we know he doesn't like.  

That's because he was fairly dogmatic that the "traffic signals" ought to all be green or red, maybe yellow, but never mixed signals.  He felt aligning all the signals encouraged the player to hit the "proper shot" and of course, didn't like it as much when the mixed signals caused some mental confusion.  He felt that over 18 holes, the course should ask/encourage the player to hit all those different shots to gain advantage.  At the same time, if you ask, " What if I am not capable of hitting those shots?", he didn't think the answer "Oh, you're just screwed, then!" would be very popular......

I have heard Jack say "a course should never hurt the player, only the player should hurt the player".  Again, my impression is that many non golfer gca's don't understand what the top players want in this regard.  And then some, perhaps like TD, are actively trying to get them to hit non-standard, confusing, extremely difficult or uncomfortable mixed signal or high risk shots, (like having to aim over water to curve the ball on the green) which basically they don't like.  

Some would say we coddle the tour pro and their ilk by designing "comfortable" shots and that we should do all we can to make them uncomfortable over the ball.  Others think their opinions are sacred.  I think there is room for all those kinds of courses and all those kinds of opinions.  It may just be that their isn't room for that kind of conflict of opinion on one course, designed by two gca's!  At the very least, you can see where the friction would arise, despite the top talent and best of intentions.

[Phil Benedict]

As much as I hate to admit it because Colbert's body language after making a putt always irritated me, I agree with him that golf courses should test your ability to hit different kinds of shots.  The greatest satisfaction I get from a golf shot is when I pull something off that goes against my tendencies.

[Michael Dugger]

All this talk about what a golf shot is has begun to make my head hurt.

It's intuitive....you don't need to be a pro player or freaking Butch Harmon to "get it."

Screw whatever Nicklaus said or says.  So much mental masturbation going on around here lately.  I'm sorry fellas but there isn't any meat on this bone.  Y'all scraping your teeth on marrow.

I venture to guess from time to time we all have hit a "Nicklaus" worthy seven iron.  Even I have hit a 300 yd drive in my lifetime.  It was downhill and downwind but who's keeping track.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Michael, with all due respect, I can't agree with you.

For one, the history of golf instruction has been from the artistic (think Jackie Gleason swing) to the scientific.  

Second, what is intuition anyway, but remembered experience?  If JN decides to use a putter from the fringe at Rustic Canyon, its because he knows from experience that he gets better results in similar situations.  Or hits a cut shot, or whatever, no?  So, a pro does bring that to the design table,  even if I believe its something you can absorb while not having played that kind of shot under competitive conditons.  And, as Tom says, you don't have to be a championship golfer to be a golfer, so we can debate just how important a contribution that is.

But, IMHO, it would be unwise to divorce the concept of golf shots from golf architecture.

[Randy Thompson]

With 85 projects in development throughout different parts of world scanning the globe, I wonder how much time he has to compete with the land of each individual site and search for the best strategic designs of individual holes and incorporate his massive understanding of the golf shot. The truth of the matter is, his biggest challenge is how to incorporate this understanding of the golf shot on a plan presented to him in his office prepared by a junior architect. Has his ego gotten so big he can't possibly bring himself to see others work and possibly further evolve in a career that one should never stop learning. JN comments in this interview only reinforce what I have felt for some time, he is one of the greatest strikers of the ball of all time, he has evolved into an excellent business man and truly understands marketing and how perception is everything and reality is inferior to perception. In my opinion, he won't be satisfied with 85 projects in development at the same time nor 100 or 200. If he and the readers of this site believe this is the road to quality golf course design, more power to him and to you the readers. I must say he has created demand for his product with success but I personally will never categorize him as one of the great architects of our time. If you owned one of the best pieces of land left in the world, to make a truly top 100 golf course, would you really consider turning it over to Jack? I personally would not but I may buy stock in his company some day!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Randy,

I would say he has about as much time to devote to strategy planning as Ross did in his heyday. Maybe a smidge less than RTJ in his heyday.  You know, despite popular perception around here, his ratio might not be that much less than Tom Doak's time/project ratio.  

It is a problem of success that affects ALL successful professionals.  I think you can take JN's comments in a lot of different ways, and that most of the posts here take them in ways that reinforce our own self opinions of the man/architect.  And, he did say that he learned from Tom on the Sebonac project, which is somehow overlooked by those attributing negative connotations to his remarks about not having time to go to Sand Hills.  

I doubt any of Jack's designers are junior designers. I think they have all been around for a while.  Well, I guess we would have to call Jack Jr. a "junior" designer.

[Jerry Lemons]

Randy,

I would say he has about as much time to devote to strategy planning as Ross did in his heyday. Maybe a smidge less than RTJ in his heyday.  You know, despite popular perception around here, his ratio might not be that much less than Tom Doak's time/project ratio.  

If we All, Including JN, had the time to spend on all our projects now that we had on our FIRST, they would be that much better.

I had heard when I started in my designs that the first course you do sometimes turns out the best. Although I am not in complete agreement to that, I do know that I had the time and spent more time on minor details of greens and their complexes than I may do now during construction. I spent a bunch then....

[David Stamm]

For me, IMHO, it boils down to this.

"The ideal hole (course) is surely one that affords the greatest pleasure to the greatest number."- Alister MacKenzie


And as for JN,


"No man learns to to design a golf course simply by playing golf, no matter how well."- Robert Tyre Jones, Jr.

[Mike_Cirba]

A "golf shot should be" one that utilizes calibrated, regulated implements swung by a "golfer" in an effort to propel a small ball towards an intended target.

Everything else is up for grabs.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jerry,

That whole "first course is best" is, IMHO, probably a myth based of a few courses like PV, where first time designer Crump had lots of help from more seasoned professionals.  I know that if certain jobs had come my way earlier in my career, I wouldn't have done as good a job with them as I could now, but maybe that's just me.

But, thats a separate thread, IMHO.

David,

Interesting that you mention that MacKenzie quote, as I was thinking about it, too.  Mac said that as part of a rant on equipment increasing length, but then came to the wrong conclusion - at least its reasonable to believe that equipment advances that make the game easier for the millions who play would benefit the greater good, even if it allows Tour Pros to dominate formerly impregnable courses in about 0.00001 of the golf rounds played.

That too, is a separate thread.....however, it occurs to me that any gca who insists on designing a hard course may enhance his reputation (everyone from Doak and Nicklaus back to G Fazio and RTJ have gotten famous on the tough ones) he/she is clearly not designing for the greatest good for the greatest number of golfers.

On your second quote, I agree.  That said, if you look at Jack's quotes on Tiger being a gca, you find that he thinks that he wasn't one early on, but thinks of himself as one now, precisely because he has learned on the buidling side of it now, not just the playing side.  And, I have to agree with his thoughts on that, as well, even if he may not have had to do all the "heavy lifting" because he was smart enough to hire talented gca's like Jim Lipe.

[Craig Sweet]

I read the first post and a handful of follow ups, but did not have the guts to wade through every post...like Dugger said, a lot of "mental masturbation".

My two cents...Nicklaus is full of crap.  he came across in that interview like a big ego talking to a wide eyed potential client....."I compete against the land"  PLEASE!! What tripe!  And to have the nerve to say Doak (and most other architects) don't under stand strategy is just plain ignorant.

The guy was a great golfer,but a mediocre golf course designer who feels the need to constantly boast his image as a golfer and a designer.

[Anthony_Nysse]

For comparison reasons JN has 6 courses in Top 100 and Doak has 2.
JN-Muirfield Village-#18
      Castle Pines-#36
      Shoal Creek-#50
      Mayacama-#66
      Valhalla-#67
      Sycamore Hills-#92

TD-Pacific Dunes-#14
      Lost Dunes-#63

Whether or not JNs comments are right or wrong, or he souldnt have said the things he did, we must remember that both JN and TD have VERY large egos and are very proud of their work. Im sure that neither JN, nor TD were excited initially about having to work with one another. Both like to bask in the glory and credit. Their work is completley different and some like one type and dislike the other. We're thankful for both types of work.

Lastly, in my opinion, JN is the biggest reason that  we see such fine conditioned courses of today. JNs Muirfield set the standard way back in the late 70s when it opened and continues to be that way today. To be able to play on a very finely manicured course should always be a pleasure be cause of how much has to fall into place to get things so.

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC