Jack's Legacy on Golf Course Architecture

[Scott Warren]

If it wasn't a word it is now!

Just to be clear, I don't begrudge the author writing it as he did, but all I was getting at was that it wasn't the type of thing that would likely delve all that deeply or produce much of substance.

Perhaps "profile piece" would have been better than "puff piece". Still, I remain confused by the passage I quoted.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Scott

Thanks

Melvyn

[Mac Plumart]

Scott...

the point of me posting that was to follow up on Adam's post discussing the progression of Jack Nicklaus as a designer.

He got started in the business, as you say, and he had the most success were he was involved the least.  If the first three courses you were involved with were constantly in the Top 100 right from the start, why would change a thing or even think that what you were doing wasn't right?

So it appears to me that he thinks/thought that those quick and fast sessions where he gives his opinions are so valuable and insightful that they are the reasons his courses are/were so highly regarded.  In fact, this seems to build on the previous comments in this thread that Jack doesn't believe routing is what makes a course, rather it is his ideas of where to put bunkers and the like.

My post also touches on why people love his Muirfield Village course so much and, therefore, opens up some thoughts from Golf.com on what might be Jack's legacy regarding architecture...after all that is the point of this thread...and here is that quote...

Critics lauded "The House That Jack Built," as much for its flawless conditioning as for its design hallmarks, but every bit as impressive was how Nicklaus seamlessly integrated spectator areas into the closing holes, using hillsides and amphitheater-style mounding to provide fans with unimpeded views of the action…

Also, this was offered as a potential thought on his legacy, "Jack builds gorgeous courses that are impossible to play, maintain or afford. "

But I also cite Jack's quote saying he listens to his critics and implies that he cares about progressing as a designer.  This implies his legacy isn't yet written and I, for one, am interested to see the progression of his work after his time spent with Sebonack.

[Scott Warren]

Mac P: He got started in the business, as you say, and he had the most success were he was involved the least.  If the first three courses you were involved with were constantly in the Top 100 right from the start, why would change a thing or even think that what you were doing wasn't right?

Do you genuinely believe Jack would have looked at Harbour Town and The Golf Club's success and believed his small level of input (in relation to Dye) was what made them what they were?

My instinct is to give Nicklaus more credit than to think something so foolish, let alone to then form a design company based on the idea that such a small amount of input with lesser architects than Pete Dye would yield similar results to Harbour Town and The Golf Club.

[Garland Bayley]

Mac P: He got started in the business, as you say, and he had the most success were he was involved the least.  If the first three courses you were involved with were constantly in the Top 100 right from the start, why would change a thing or even think that what you were doing wasn't right?

Do you genuinely believe Jack would have looked at Harbour Town and The Golf Club's success and believed his small level of input (in relation to Dye) was what made them what they were?

My instinct is to give Nicklaus more credit than to think something so foolish, let alone to then form a design company based on the idea that such a small amount of input with lesser architects than Pete Dye would yield similar results to Harbour Town and The Golf Club.

In his book, Nicklaus by Design, he lists the architects for Harbour Town as Jack Nicklaus, Pete Dye and for Muirfield Village, as Jack Nicklaus, Desmond Muirhead. For all of the courses done with these architects, he lists himself first.

Interestingly his chapter on "designing" does not mention routing. It is the chapter on "making" that routing is discussed. Perhaps if the land developer hands you a property with the houses on the high ground and the left over low ground for you to make a golf course out of, there is no need to route, but simply make golf holes on the left over land. Which works out fine for him since he likes to design holes that run through valleys as he writes in the book.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I think it's futile to speculate on what he did and didn't do on a particular project, unless his contribution has been documented in detail, or that those (Dye, Doak, Muirhead, associates, shapers, etc..) who worked with him on a particular project, have given an account on what he did and didn't do. GCAs et al. can also have their own agendas, so their account my not be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

All the rest of us can do is form an opinion which is probably based on inaccurate anecdotes, rumours, and hearsay. We can also play some of "his" courses and argue about which ones are good enough to be in a World Top 100. There are too many uncertainties, and with time, the facts will become even more blurred.

If JN lies in bed at night pondering his legacy to GCA (which I doubt he does), he only has himself to blame for "muddying the waters" when it come to design attribution. He may not be the greatest GCA in history, but he can make a very strong claim to having been the greatest golfer in history.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mac

I am most concerned that we do not have a specific way of gauging who designed a course. Without that how can we rate lets alone credit an individual with the honour of the design. To say that many were involved under a specific Golfer who happens to also own the Design House is not way forward to design accreditation.

I do not for the life of me understand how the location of bunkers (or the like) can afford the design credit for the layout of the whole course. Many courses in the past have been laid out without bunkers, They were not positioned, let alone constructed until months after the course opened (albeit mainly on inland courses), so in cases like that you or others are saying that the designer was not known until after the bunkers were added – sounds bloody stupid if not mad to me. One such course where the bunkers were added later (that springs to mind) is West Herts, original OTM but bunkers not added until 3 months late by Taylor http://www.westhertsgolfclub.co.uk/index.lasso?pg=49ae5199a2c1233e&mp=293dbf6e1896039a .

My own view is that whoever routed the course has far more claim than anyone else. The Greens need the (or at least the intended)  line of sight of the fairways as does the location of the bunker.

I believe that all courses should be designed for Mr Average but that does not mean that the Tees have to be in line like Nelson Fleet. The problem is that the Pro’s have more say in the design even without saying a word because everyone wants a Championship course, however I want one that pushes me, makes me think ‘is the risk worth it’. To keep pumping in Birdies and Pars is no thrill, in fact the course is way too boring, I want to be pushed to get a Par, I want hazards to test my nerve let alone my skill, Christ, I want to play Golf not Pitch and Putt. IMHO its takes a good designer to see way beyond the Pro game, it’s the testing of courage that makes or breaks a course. Has Jack any course like that to his name – I do not know as I have not played in North America – but so far I see a guy who was a great golfer seemingly hidden somewhere within the worldwide company he built. So it’s way too early to say anything about his GCA legacy IMHO

Melvyn.   

[Pete Lavallee]

But I also cite Jack's quote saying he listens to his critics and implies that he cares about progressing as a designer.  This implies his legacy isn't yet written and I, for one, am interested to see the progression of his work after his time spent with Sebonack.

 After well over 200 courses we still have to wait to see how he progesses as a designer?

Let's face it, when you think the routing and detail work are minor considerations, you end up with a bunch of good but not great golf courses; the critics seem to agree with that opinion.