[Jim Nugent]

He asked me two or three times during the process why I spent so much time doting over the details when we could be doing more courses instead; I just told him I was happier doing it my way.

Does Jack make anything of the fact that you have a number of courses in the world top 100, and he has basically none? 

Or does he feel he is making the best courses of the modern age, and the raters are wrong?   

[Melvyn Morrow]

If you are selling an idea, be it in the form of a design for art, for a golf course or decorative objects and you are using your name then I sincerely believe that you need to identify the designer.

How that is done in other fields is down to them but in golf I believe the routing of the course defines the design, so that individual should be accredited as the designer, be he an associate, partner or sole owner of the design house.

In golf we want to know the course designers so I feel that need should be met by the design houses and names named. Its also in part our legacy

Melvyn

[Peter Pallotta]

This reminds me of a thread I started quite a while ago asking about architects' "heirarchy of values".  I don't think a single poster who's in the profession wanted to be explicit about their own personal value system, and about how it manifests in their design work. I understood that reluctance then and I understand it now.  And it seems to me that what we're all dancing around here but not asking out loud is exactly the same thing, i.e. what we want to know -- but dare not ask -- is what Jack's "values" are, and we wonder whether (in fact, it seems most on here implicity expect) those values will be judged lacking in years to come.  What's more, I get the feeling that the rest of us -- a bit presumptously, no? -- are eager and willing to tell JN and other architects what their values should be.  I guess we are free to do that, in some sense; just as they in turn are free to tell us to eff off, and to put our attention re values where it belongs.

Actually, now that I've written this I realize it doesn't help this thread at all. I'm just gravitating to the same old questions that interest me personally.  
 
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Jim Nugent:

I don't think Jack Nicklaus is even aware of how many highly ranked courses I've worked on, and I don't think he would care.  

Jack has his idea of what golf is supposed to be, and he's building courses for that idea.  That's why he generally doesn't check out other people's courses.  And if a bunch of raters disagree with him, what do they know about golf that he doesn't?


Melvyn:

I appreciate your point of view, but the modern world doesn't really work that way.  Did Calvin Klein really design your jeans?  Did William Clay Ford design your car?  Probably not, but even if they wrote the name of the guy who did, it would probably be in Chinese so neither of us could read it.

But just for your benefit, I've done 29 courses, and I did the routing for pretty much all of them.  I inherited a routing at Stonewall in Philadelphia from Tom Fazio's office, and changed 4-5 holes of it.  My associates have contributed routing changes on a handful of courses ... Eric Iverson solved the first three holes at Rock Creek, Jim Urbina found the 16th and 17th at Old Macdonald, Chad Grave found a few holes in Mexico when we were forced to change directions, and Brian Schneider found the 7th hole on our new course in Florida, after Bill Coore found a few of the first six.  [That's not intended to be a complete list, just a few I could think of off the top of my head.]  In general, though, I think I did the lion's share of the work on nearly all of them, because that's the part I'm good at.

The thing is, there are other golf course architects who don't think the routing is the most important part of it -- especially the architects who were professional golfers.  They think that placing the bunkers and designing the greens is where the design really happens.  Many golfers would agree with that, and sometimes, depending on the nature of the site, so would I.

[Matt_Ward]

Mac:

Clearly, Desert Highlands would be on the short list. I believe Tom D's comments via Confidential Guide give a good accounting of the course.

I also like what Jack did with such places like Outlaw at Desert Mtn. It's not in the same vein as the more difficult layouts like Geronimo and Chirichua but it offers a playabilty dimension that is clearly far away from the aerial only / demands with only the low handicap player in mind approach that he favored with so many layouts early on in his design career.

I've mentioned what Jack did at Red Ledges in Heber City, UT. Just a scenic wonder that provides some of the more vexing greens I have ever seen from his handiwork. Plenty of visual images but again playability from tee-to-green is present (provided the suitable tees are played).

Jack, as Tom mentioned, views his work from a narrow tunnel in how he sees things. Is he influenced by others? I can't say for certain but clearly his finished products have added various elements that were lacking early on in my mind. I will try to name a few other courses that fit the bill in terms of his evolution in design.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

I understand, but the problem with that is who the hell is the designer. Look at the fun and games we have on this site trying to find out who was responsible for the designs and modifications of old courses. We nearly have WW3 at times, so why can't the designers understand that the poor golfing nuts want to know who did what and when to a specific course. Why can't you designers agree to the definition of a design.

My feeling is it has to be based upon the routing, anything else is down to construction. That’s the whole point about this topic if we exclude his golfing days what is Jack's legacy. The building a large design practice certainly, but has he actually designed any courses? Has he just become a name or signature. Yet I suspect that  the smaller firms partners have more of a hands on approach so would be more inclined to warrant being called the designer.

If you guys want a legacy, then unscramble the issue and lets have the information otherwise you leave a legacy that will forever be questioned as how accurate.

Melvyn

[Greg Tallman]

He asked me two or three times during the process why I spent so much time doting over the details when we could be doing more courses instead; I just told him I was happier doing it my way.

Does Jack make anything of the fact that you have a number of courses in the world top 100, and he has basically none? 

 

That is an inaccurate statement

[Tom_Doak]

Greg:

Just to be clear, it's Jim Nugent's inaccurate statement, not mine.


Melvyn:

Frankly, vying for "legacy" in golf course architecture creates more problems than it solves.  The end product is the thing that matters, not who did what.  If you took my name away from my courses, it wouldn't matter to most people anyway.  But if you took Jack's name away from his courses, his clients wouldn't like it very much, because they paid for that name, and that's what they are selling on.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg:

Just to be clear, it's Jim Nugent's inaccurate statement, not mine.


Melvyn:

Frankly, vying for "legacy" in golf course architecture creates more problems than it solves.  The end product is the thing that matters, not who did what.  If you took my name away from my courses, it wouldn't matter to most people anyway.  But if you took Jack's name away from his courses, his clients wouldn't like it very much, because they paid for that name, and that's what they are selling on.

Of course and point taken, need to clearly direct posts toward the author of inaccurate statement.

I have no qualms about Jack taking credit for MVGC... Harbour Town is beyond a stretch in my opinion.

[JC Jones]

Greg:

Just to be clear, it's Jim Nugent's inaccurate statement, not mine.


Melvyn:

Frankly, vying for "legacy" in golf course architecture creates more problems than it solves.  The end product is the thing that matters, not who did what.  If you took my name away from my courses, it wouldn't matter to most people anyway.  But if you took Jack's name away from his courses, his clients wouldn't like it very much, because they paid for that name, and that's what they are selling on.

Let's save the futile attempts at self-effacing statements like the above.   You, the respective clubs and their members are very much promoting your courses with your name prominent in the discussion.   In fact, the attachment of your name alone lends itself to a certain level of quality.  It may not resonate with most of the golfing public but it certainly does with the clientele the owners of your courses are trying to attract.  

I haven't read anywhere that Nicklaus is vying for any sort of "legacy" in golf course architecture.  Though I will say that much like Tiger made the rest of the members of the PGA Tour rich by raising purses, visibility, etc., I think Jack Nicklaus has done the same with respect to golf course architects who have name value because prior to him, I'm not sure whomever designed the course was particularly relevant for marketing purposes.  

[Jim Nugent]

Does Jack make anything of the fact that you have a number of courses in the world top 100, and he has basically none? 

 

That is an inaccurate statement

In my opinion it's not. 

[Greg Tallman]

Does Jack make anything of the fact that you have a number of courses in the world top 100, and he has basically none? 

 

That is an inaccurate statement

In my opinion it's not. 

Jack has courses rate in the Top 100. How is your staement not inaccurate?

[Carl Johnson]

Jack’s Legacy but as per the question what about 50 years or more importantly 100 years from now, will there be much left to call a legacy when referring to GCA.

Legacy is only important if it lasts otherwise its not a legacy

Melvyn

And what is most likely to last?  I'd say the routing.  Bunkers will come and go.  Greens will be "fixed."  Trees will grow (at least on some courses).  Ponds will be added.  I've not read all of the prior posts on this discussion, so maybe this has been covered before.  But . . . I'm thinking that over time what really lasts is the routing.  Please, experts, correct me if I'm wrong on the classics.  What I'm intrigued by is the routing of classics on very small tracts of land.  It's one thing to put your course on mega-acres, but fitting a good layout onto a relatively small tract is what, to me, creates the legacy.  How does Jack compare with the greats on this one?  Ross for starters.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Carl

My problem with Ross is that he did not shine when still in GB, Can't comment on his American courses. Also the routing is what I consider is the heart of the design, but that's my opinion.

Melvyn

[Carl Johnson]

Carl

. . . Also the routing is what I consider is the heart of the design, but that's my opinion.

Melvyn

Mine too.  So, that's what I'd focus on for the legacy.  Carl

[Melvyn Morrow]

Carl

But did Jack undertake the routing on his courses, if so then there is a legacy, if shared then he just owns a Design House, his legacy being his playing days, not design.

Melvyn

[Carl Johnson]

Carl

But did Jack undertake the routing on his courses, if so then there is a legacy, if shared then he just owns a Design House, his legacy being his playing days, not design.

Melvyn

I agree that's the question . . . to which I do not know the answer, but which I hope that others more knowledgeable than I will chime in on. 

Carl

[Mac Plumart]

It seems fairly clear to me that these posts say explicitly or implicitly that his legacy is related to his playing days and his business endeavors.

[Garland Bayley]

Does Jack make anything of the fact that you have a number of courses in the world top 100, and he has basically none? 

 

That is an inaccurate statement

In my opinion it's not. 

Jack has courses rate in the Top 100. How is your staement not inaccurate?

Jack has the Cabo course at 95 (pretty close to basically none). He is listed as co-designer of two others. One few are going to give him credit for. The other some will. Tom has Pac Dunes, Ballyneal, Cape Kidnappers, Barnbougle, and what looks like a real comer in Old MacDonald.

[Greg Tallman]

Does Jack make anything of the fact that you have a number of courses in the world top 100, and he has basically none? 

 

That is an inaccurate statement

In my opinion it's not. 

Jack has courses rate in the Top 100. How is your staement not inaccurate?

Jack has the Cabo course at 95 (pretty close to basically none). He is listed as co-designer of two others. One few are going to give him credit for. The other some will. Tom has Pac Dunes, Ballyneal, Cape Kidnappers, Barnbougle, and what looks like a real comer in Old MacDonald.

With all due respect - bascially none implies something far different than the reality of the situation. Oneis not basically none. One is one. I also think Jack has enough sweat in the game to lay claim to MVGC as well.

[John Moore II]

So, I have not posted on here so far, but as I understand it, Nicklaus Design, Inc. has several different categories of designs. The top level is a "Jack Nicklaus Signature" with the implication there being that Jack himself will spend far more time on the site. The next level is a "Jack Nicklaus" course where Jack does some of the work, but leaves much of it to his associates. And the lowest level is "Nicklaus Design" where Jack may never even see the site; courses like Legacy Links in Aberdeen, NC designed by Jack Nicklaus II and Salem Glen in Clemmons, NC designed by Glen Day (of all people). Basically the more you pay, the more Jack involvement you get. But at the lowest level, you get a 'firm' design, but still get to use the Golden Bear logo. That is my understanding of the Nicklaus Design business model. As far as a routing, do we not agree that it is possible to design without seeing the site? After all, topographic maps on CAD systems are highly advanced these days.

[Garland Bayley]

Does Jack make anything of the fact that you have a number of courses in the world top 100, and he has basically none? 

 

That is an inaccurate statement

In my opinion it's not. 

Jack has courses rate in the Top 100. How is your staement not inaccurate?

Jack has the Cabo course at 95 (pretty close to basically none). He is listed as co-designer of two others. One few are going to give him credit for. The other some will. Tom has Pac Dunes, Ballyneal, Cape Kidnappers, Barnbougle, and what looks like a real comer in Old MacDonald.

With all due respect - bascially none implies something far different than the reality of the situation. Oneis not basically none. One is one. I also think Jack has enough sweat in the game to lay claim to MVGC as well.

Well, you will have to excuse me if I disagree on his claim to MVGC. The course was done when he was quite the novice. He came a hairsbreadth from having to declare bankruptcy, because of that particular development. Now that he has sited a popular tournament there, he gets some bonus for that. So Jay Blasi was the junior associate on a course in the Top 100. When he gets to be 70 years of age, are we going to give him credit for that one to go with any others he might place in the top 100?

[Jim Nugent]

Does Jack make anything of the fact that you have a number of courses in the world top 100, and he has basically none?  

 

That is an inaccurate statement

In my opinion it's not.  

Jack has courses rate in the Top 100. How is your staement not inaccurate?

I take it back.  Didn't see Cabo del Sol.  My apologies.  

Then my statement becomes, "what does Jack make of the fact that you have 4 courses in the world top 100 -- maybe soon to be 6 -- and he has one.  Near the bottom.  That he didn't route."  

i.e. seems to me the point still holds.  Tom produces lots more highly regarded courses.  

Another thought.  Dismal River apparently improved a great deal with all the re-working.  If Jack and team had spent more time on the course before it opened, could they have avoided the problems that required almost immediate fixing?  

ETA: I just can't see how Jack designed either Harbour Towne or MV.  And if you do give him co-design, he didn't do those courses the way he works with his own company. 

[Garland Bayley]

You mean to tell me Jack didn't route Cabo del Sol either! Even Arthur Hills has a course in the world Top 100. Why would anyone hire Jack with that kind of batting average? Seems he won't make the bigs if he can't get on base more often than that.

[Adam Clayman]

And what is most likely to last?  I'd say the routing.  Bunkers will come and go.  Greens will be "fixed."  Trees will grow (at least on some courses).  Ponds will be added.  I've not read all of the prior posts on this discussion, so maybe this has been covered before.  But . . . I'm thinking that over time what really lasts is the routing.  Please, experts, correct me if I'm wrong on the classics.  What I'm intrigued by is the routing of classics on very small tracts of land.  It's one thing to put your course on mega-acres, but fitting a good layout onto a relatively small tract is what, to me, creates the legacy.  How does Jack compare with the greats on this one?  Ross for starters.

Carl, I;ve seen a few Raynor courses (and others) where the routing did not remain. But what did was the fairway contours. My impression is that they are over looked because they would be too costly to alter. I'd also assume there are examples where that's not the case, but I have seen two Raynor courses where the routing, greens and tees were altered but not the fairway contours on the holes where the corridors were not changed.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()