News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« on: July 14, 2011, 12:08:06 PM »
I happened to be checking out the "Courses by Country" section and I came across this cool piece of writing by Ran in the May River golf course description. I think the piece is insightful and worthy of its own thread:

Jack Nicklaus Design has built over 300 courses in thirty-seven countries. From Gleneagles in Scotland, across to Europe and Asia, down to Australia, up and over to Hawaii, the Baja region of Mexico, and north along the Pacific coast to Whistler in Canada, the geographic reach of Jack Nicklaus‘ golf course architecture career is unparalleled.

A huge business today, his design career started quietly enough in 1967 on Hilton Head Island in South Carolina. There, he enjoyed learning and exchanging ideas with Pete Dye during the construction process of Harbour Town.

During the thirty five period from when Harbour Town opened until construction started on May River in 2002, numerous golf architecture trends came and went. Jack Nicklaus‘ own thoughts on golf course design evolved as well. What he liked early in his design career, he may no longer care as much for today. For instance, the 1996 Australian Open was held at The Australian Golf Club outside of Sydney. Jack Nicklaus remodeled the course in1978 as a favor to his friend and member Kerry Packer. Jack Nicklaus told the press after touring the course in 1996 that there was quite a bit he would do different design wise today if given the chance. This caused quite a kafuffle with the membership but the joy of being Jack Nicklaus is that you are always free to speak your mind! Without doubt, The Australian makes for a rigorous test for the game’s best. However, its water hazards and steep faced bunkers that line the edges of the greens limit its lasting appeal to strong golfers only – and Jack Nicklaus realized that.

In general, such high demand architecture characterized golf course construction during the 1970s and 1980s. With penal hazards flush against the greens, the golf played on such courses made for dramatic moments when seen on television. However, on a daily playing basis, no golfer enjoys losing several golf balls as it robs him of any sense of playing satisfaction. Playing these designs wore out golfers as they tired of facing so many do or die shots each round.

Starting in the 1990s and certainly by 2000, it was evident that something needed to change in golf course architecture. Building a tough golf course was easy. In fact, doing so required little imagination or skill. The far greater challenge was for golf architects to once again build courses that remained interesting to play for a wide range of playing abilities for decades to come ala the courses built during the Golden Age of golf architecture.

Today, every architect claims they build such courses – whether they do or not is a point of debate. To fulfill this lofty claim of building pleasurable golf for the widest range of golfers possible, what are the key design tenets that must be present?

Certainly, there must be plenty of playing room off the tee. Cramped holes lack strategy, produce cramped swings, and fail to hold the golfer’s interest over time. Angles of play help the course remain engaging for years to come. After encouraging the golfer to make a bold positive swing from the tee, the challenge can stiffen the closer one gets to the green. Most golfers are going to miss more than half the greens during their round. To enjoy their round, they need to be given the ability to find their ball (i.e. minimal water hazards and thick grass) and have a reasonable opportunity to play a recovery shot (i.e. no twelve feet deep bunkers). Playing recovery shots from short grass to a green a few feet above the golfer is within the skill set of all golfers and provides the widest range possible in types of recovery shots. Furthermore, when taken together, the eighteen putting surfaces and their interior contours need to pose a variety of challenges. Some should gather balls in toward certain hole locations while others should feature plateaus with shoulders that carry balls away. Finally, the entire course must be reflective of its natural environment. Human beings have a natural affinity for being in nature. Its draw is timeless and if the course’s appeal is rooted in nature, the course too stands a great chance of sharing that timeless quality.

Each of the above desirable traits can be found at May River. This is no surprise as in recent years, Jack Nicklaus has spoken openly about the need to return to fun golf. His designs are now reflecting that desire. Mayacama Golf Club in Napa Valley, which opened in August, 2001, is one such example and so too is May River.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2011, 12:17:13 PM by Bill Brightly »

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2011, 03:12:28 PM »
Mayacama, Succesion and Sebonack seem to me to reflect the evolved Nicklaus. Jim Lipe is also a big part of the evolution as well. I liked May River but do not find it to be same club as those others.

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2011, 04:57:38 PM »
On another thread, I put my two cents in for Pronghorn (Nicklaus).  It's a tough course with a high rating/slope.  They've been running the greens at 12-14 feet the first few years.  They may have toned it down a bit.  The greens are very gently sloped; a lot of medium length putts had little break and were easy to read.  I felt I had a chance to make putts.

The course begins with the simplest hole first, followed by a zig-zag par 5, a long par 3 with a big funky shoulder, and a little par 4 that features the same strategy as Riviera #10.  Then the course gets hard for a few holes.  The back nine is designed for risk and reward, four par 4s, the last two short and strange, followed by a 3-5-5-3 stretch before the anticlimactic finishing hole -  a long, dogleg left par 4, with the green surrounded by structures.

The course is flat, fair, fun and varied.  Minimalistic layout that lays down on the land nicely.  It makes you move the ball around.  Par 5 holes #2, #15 and #16 are a great trio.  Nice place, with two very good courses.

Kyle Henderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2011, 05:49:18 PM »
Bill,

The Nicklaus Design group recently wrote a letter to "The Australian," offering their services to improve a number of the course's faults. This struck many as an interesting way to solicit business, given that Nicklaus was the architect originally responsible for the course's design.
"I always knew terrorists hated us for our freedom. Now they love us for our bondage." -- Stephen T. Colbert discusses the popularity of '50 Shades of Grey' at Gitmo

Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2011, 06:07:43 PM »
Jack did great work for us at Dismal River and we certainly are an evolution, maybe even "Jack unplugged".  Now the the irrigation is under control, the layout is getting some well deserved respect.  He has done more than anyone for the game, and plenty on the design side.

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2011, 07:27:34 PM »
Mayacama, Succesion and Sebonack seem to me to reflect the evolved Nicklaus. Jim Lipe is also a big part of the evolution as well. I liked May River but do not find it to be same club as those others.

Nice subtle plug for your fellow Tiger

Ted Cahill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2011, 08:04:45 PM »
On another thread, I put my two cents in for Pronghorn (Nicklaus).  It's a tough course with a high rating/slope.  They've been running the greens at 12-14 feet the first few years.  They may have toned it down a bit.  The greens are very gently sloped; a lot of medium length putts had little break and were easy to read.  I felt I had a chance to make putts.

The course begins with the simplest hole first, followed by a zig-zag par 5, a long par 3 with a big funky shoulder, and a little par 4 that features the same strategy as Riviera #10.  Then the course gets hard for a few holes.  The back nine is designed for risk and reward, four par 4s, the last two short and strange, followed by a 3-5-5-3 stretch before the anticlimactic finishing hole -  a long, dogleg left par 4, with the green surrounded by structures.

The course is flat, fair, fun and varied.  Minimalistic layout that lays down on the land nicely.  It makes you move the ball around.  Par 5 holes #2, #15 and #16 are a great trio.  Nice place, with two very good courses.

John- I entirely agree.  I recently returned from a golf trip to Bend- I loved Pronghorn.  The back to back par 5's on the back 9 were very interesting (Pete Dye did this on Dye's Valley at Sawgrass- I like it there, too).  On the front, there is an uphill par 4 that plays into a blind green that sits in a mini punchbowl- I loved the design and can't think of any other hole like it.  If you are going to Bend- sikp Tetherow and go to Pronghorn. 
“Bandon Dunes is like Chamonix for skiers or the
North Shore of Oahu for surfers,” Rogers said. “It is
where those who really care end up.”

Will Lozier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2011, 11:36:34 PM »
Jack's design career actually began with Pete at The Golf Club pre-Harbour town. 

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2011, 12:51:46 AM »
On another thread, I put my two cents in for Pronghorn (Nicklaus).  It's a tough course with a high rating/slope.  They've been running the greens at 12-14 feet the first few years.  They may have toned it down a bit.  The greens are very gently sloped; a lot of medium length putts had little break and were easy to read.  I felt I had a chance to make putts.

The course begins with the simplest hole first, followed by a zig-zag par 5, a long par 3 with a big funky shoulder, and a little par 4 that features the same strategy as Riviera #10.  Then the course gets hard for a few holes.  The back nine is designed for risk and reward, four par 4s, the last two short and strange, followed by a 3-5-5-3 stretch before the anticlimactic finishing hole -  a long, dogleg left par 4, with the green surrounded by structures.

The course is flat, fair, fun and varied.  Minimalistic layout that lays down on the land nicely.  It makes you move the ball around.  Par 5 holes #2, #15 and #16 are a great trio.  Nice place, with two very good courses.

John- I entirely agree.  I recently returned from a golf trip to Bend- I loved Pronghorn.  The back to back par 5's on the back 9 were very interesting (Pete Dye did this on Dye's Valley at Sawgrass- I like it there, too).  On the front, there is an uphill par 4 that plays into a blind green that sits in a mini punchbowl- I loved the design and can't think of any other hole like it.  If you are going to Bend- sikp Tetherow and go to Pronghorn.  

Hi Ted,

It's either #5 or #6, two very long uphill holes, perhaps averaging 490 from the tips.  Good looking golf holes that give you a chance.  Actually, it has to be #5 you're talking about, because #6 is the 500 yard uphill hole that's steeply downhill for the final 40 yards.  Neat designs.  A reasonably strong guy can play these holes with a good drive and a long iron from the proper tees.  Really a nice stretch of holes, when added to the fine 2-4 combination.

Also, the #11/12/13 par 4 combo is very intriguing, and visually disturbing. The variety of looks at Pronghorn (Nicklaus) is a strong suit, and these three holes sort of cement this course's ability to change the look, much more often than the typically excellent golf course.  With this said, the #15/16 combo is as beautiful and fine a set of back-to-back par 5s I have played.  A stunner, followed by another angle-conscious design.

In summary, I've played just a few Nicklaus courses, and this is my favorite.  It's charming and quirky and beautiful, and it makes you hit good shots.  Full of strategy and demanding from tee to green, but with gentle, very predictable greens, it's quite special.

(Edit:  I was wrong about the hole number, Ted.  You must be talking about #6.)
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 02:22:51 AM by John Kirk »

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2011, 07:14:31 AM »
I thought his work at Dismal River was fantastic.  A fair amount of quirk (a good thing), great angles, good use of elevation changes, and a high fun factor.   Not exactly Glen Abbey.  Yes, I saw significant growth and I liked it!

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2011, 07:29:09 AM »
The evolution is subtle. His newest course outside Vegas has hints of the influence of Doak and team. But, Dismal, may be the biggest departure for JN's team, with many thoughtful contours both interior and exterior green.

The aspect that typifies most of his courses are the demanding shots required to have fun. Save for the New Course.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2011, 10:41:58 AM »
Jack's design career actually began with Pete at The Golf Club pre-Harbour town. 

Will:

You should be careful how you say stuff.  As far as I am aware, Jack went out a few times to visit with Pete while Pete was building The Golf Club.  [So did Tom Weiskopf, I think.]  That does not qualify as "beginning one's design career" in my book. 

Kirk Moon

Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2011, 10:49:31 AM »
Mayacama represents the "newer, softer, friendlier" Jack Nicklaus design?  "Building pleasurable golf for the widest range of golfers possible"?  Sheesh.  I'm no golf architecture wizard, but I must be missing something.  Mayacama has a fairly normal course rating, but the slope is one of the highest in Northern California if memory serves me correctly.  

I have a 16+ index and played the course for the first time three days ago.  I hit the ball long but have relatively bad directional control.  (A combination I strongly recommend against.)  Shot 112 (adjusted!)  I think I lost 10 balls (hard to keep track after a while.)  

More than half of the greens on the course require a forced carry (1,2,3,5,6,7,10,11,13,14,15) and only a few holes offer a genuine option of a non-aerial approach (8,9,12,16).  Weed choked barrancas and creek beds (some man eating) and a few very steep grass covered ball rejecting slopes in front of the greens make this course essentially target golf of very high order.

The waste areas are high native grass and more or less impossible to hit out of.  Ditto the lateral/water hazards.  Many of the bunkers are relatively steep faced and high lipped and significantly lower than the putting surface, requiring very highly lofted shots onto very fast greens, some of which are quite narrow in the dimension that matters.  Virtually every drive on the course requires clearing a waste area of substantial length.  This posed no problem to me, but one of the other players in my group was an elderly gentleman and a relatively short hitter and was frequently vexed by hitting into them.

I don't think my experience was unique.  I was playing in a "members outing" tournament put on by the NCGA.  Around 80 participants.  Two player best net per hole format.  Three flights.  In the top flight only around half of the teams broke par (net).  In the other two flights, only around a third of the teams were below par, and only minimally at that.  More than a few teams were +8 to +12 net.  

The course is truly beautiful and very interesting and I expect that it would be a very fun test of golf for a single digit handicapper with good accuracy, but for someone like me it was a bittersweet experience. I loved being out there and was amazed by the beauty and challenge, but more or less gave up on playing a "real" game of golf after six or seven holes.   I could have scored better with just a seven iron and a putter.  If this is an example of the "evolved, mellowed, unplugged, golf for everyman" version of Nicklaus, I would hate to see his more "penal" courses. I might not come out alive.  : )  

As a complete antidote to my day at Mayacama, I played my first round at the Cal Club yesterday.  What a joy!  Great course.  Interesting terrain.  Neat design.  Wonderful greens.  Amazing bunkers.  Beautiful views.  Certainly not the pristine natural setting that Mayacama is blessed with, but very pleasant for a course set in a dense urban environment.  Inaccurate shots cost strokes but are still in play.  Lots of opportunity to run the ball in as well as fly it in.  A very enjoyable experience.  

To me, the Cal Club truly represents a course that is challenging to the expert yet still extremely enjoyable for the less gifted player.  Mayacama, not so much.  


Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2011, 12:53:01 PM »
I'm afraid I think his English work hasn't been his most inspired, based on what I've seen and played at St Mellion (by far the most interesting of the three), the London Club and Carden Park. I have no experience of his course at Gleneagles.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2011, 01:26:22 PM »
The aspect that typifies most of his courses are the demanding shots required to have fun. Save for the New Course.

Adam, funny you would say that.  I haven't played many Nicklaus designs but really dislike the 27 holes at Grand Cypress.  But they made me think of how much I did enjoy the Old Course-inspired New Course at Grand Cypress, and that was long before my first visit to St Andrews!

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2011, 01:37:21 PM »
Nice post by Kirk Moon.  I am a 2-4 handicapper, and I perceive Mayacama as quite difficult, with some very demanding shots.

Mark Johnson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2011, 02:20:35 PM »
maybe its me, but i am not necessarily a fan of the kinder, gentler designs.   I know it is necessary for resort courses, but these courses arent the ones i would choose to play if given the choice

My all-time favorite Nicklaus design (and one of my top ten from anyone) is Shoal Creek.   Very tough course which requires precision and great course management. 

 Would definitely be on my course bucket list (especially since my connection at Shoal passed away and i will likely never get to play it again.)   I would love to see more designs like this

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2011, 03:37:04 PM »
Kirk,

That definition has a lot of similarities to how I would describe the Idaho Club, which is also one of Jacks more recent works.

Its a beautiful course with lots of interesting stuff going on....but its just so brutal on any shot that isn't well struck.  There were several tee shots out there where you couldn't miss left, right, or short.

I too play to a 16 handicap, but i'm a short to medium hitter who can generally keep the ball in play.  But I struggle with consistently hitting good shots so I may par 8 holes, but then also have two triples and 4 doubles in my round to boot.

Dick Kirkpatrick

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2011, 03:59:01 PM »
I believe Jack started out working with Desmond Muirhead on several courses in Palm Springs, and was still working with him at Muirfield.

Will Lozier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2011, 05:00:59 PM »
Tom,

I would agree and probably rephrase what I said...though I would argue that, from I what can recollect from reading Pete's book years ago, that Jack's involvement with The Golf Club was his first foray into the design part of his career - as much as Harbour Town.  Would that be a fair statement from what you know?  You could probably say the same about TW?
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 05:49:40 PM by Will Lozier »

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2011, 05:43:27 PM »
John, Mayacama is a hard course to discuss. It is a very tough site and it is a hard course. Yet I found it to be a good design which was not the case for most of my experience on Jack's designs.

Kirk Moon

Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2011, 07:08:49 PM »
John, Mayacama is a hard course to discuss. It is a very tough site and it is a hard course. Yet I found it to be a good design which was not the case for most of my experience on Jack's designs.
My playing partner and I were frankly astounded that the site used for Mayacama could be molded into a reasonable golf course.  I can only imagine the thoughts running through the Nicklaus design team when they first laid eyes on the land.  

To a very large extent, the nature of the land dictated the design choices available to the team.  But even still, much of the penal character of the course was the result of conscious choice rather than the result of a forced hand.  

To wit: The steep grass covered slope in front of the first green.  The precarious and totally unforgiving location chosen for the second green.  The repeated (too often, IMHO) use of a deep ravine or creek immediately in front of a green to eliminate the ground approach.  The placement of the green on a knife's edge ridge with a steep grass covered fronting slope and no backstop on fourteen.  The placement of the fourth green immediately behind a huge specimen oak tree.  

I am not suggesting that these features are unreasonable and there is no doubt that they add great visual interest and technical challenge to playing the course.  I have to hand it to the Nicklaus team for coming up with a substantive design given the constraints of the land they had to work with.  But these design choices also render the course semi-unplayable for any golfer not possessing the ability to hit the ball reasonably far and quite accurately.  From my relatively unsophisticated viewpoint, this is the antithesis of the MacKenzie philosophy of designing courses that can be played enjoyably by players of all skill levels.  

One last comment.  As we were walking down the sixth fairway in the direction of the bunker located at the right side of the landing zone (a bunker which seems to have been designed to collect drives aimed along the shortest path to the green), our caddy mentioned that one of the shapers working on the bunker during construction asked Nicklaus (who happened to be visiting the site) whether he should build a tall lip on the bunker or keep it low enough so that a golfer could potentially have a shot out of the bunker at the green.  Nicklaus' response was reputedly that he should build the lip high because anyone hitting into this bunker had no right to have a shot at the green.  So much for the kinder, gentler Jack.  : )

Ergo my surprise at seeing Mayacama held up as an example of the new, less punitive Nicklaus design philosophy.  I have not played any other Nicklaus courses, but if this is the closest that Nicklaus comes to the MacKenzie (or Doak, or C&C) school of non-punitive design, then Jack must have one twisted sense of humor.  More than once during our round my playing partner and I found ourselves laughingly cursing Jack out loud for his seeming sadistic design choices.  
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 10:23:50 PM by Kirk Moon »

Kirk Moon

Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2011, 07:34:19 PM »
Kirk,

That definition has a lot of similarities to how I would describe the Idaho Club, which is also one of Jacks more recent works.

Its a beautiful course with lots of interesting stuff going on....but its just so brutal on any shot that isn't well struck.  There were several tee shots out there where you couldn't miss left, right, or short.

I too play to a 16 handicap, but i'm a short to medium hitter who can generally keep the ball in play.  But I struggle with consistently hitting good shots so I may par 8 holes, but then also have two triples and 4 doubles in my round to boot.
Kalen -

I played a round a couple of months ago where I shot a 91 with nine pars.  I'm so inconsistent that I can't even be consistently inconsistent.  In any event, I feel your pain.  : )

The Idaho Club sounds to be very similar to what I experienced at Mayacama.  Very cool, but very unforgiving.  

Kirk
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 10:25:53 PM by Kirk Moon »

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2011, 08:24:40 AM »
Jack gave the handicap golfer plenty of room at Dismal River.   

Andy Troeger

Re: The evolution of Jack Nicklaus as a designer
« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2011, 09:48:10 AM »
I've played quite a bit of Nicklaus' efforts (about 30 now) and find the most common trend to be difficulty. With only a couple exceptions, all of his courses have been difficult, regardless of era. The only exception that comes to mind is Superstition Mountain Propsector in Arizona, which was built for a retirement community by all appearances.

I think his most recent stuff (since Sebonack give or take) has been even more difficult than anything he was building before that. Courses like The Concession (155), Promontory (155), Red Ledges (151), Idaho Club, Old Corkscrew (153), and even Broadmoor Mountain (149) and Ritz Carlton Dove Mountain (147) have pretty high slopes. Harbor Shores is a bit softer, but much of that is that it only tips out at 6861 with a slope of 143. All of those courses beat me up as a high single-digit handicap--I would expect the double-digit handicap would have at least as much trouble.

Cougar Canyon in Colorado is the exception to that, but I believe they put Chris Cochran's name on that one, so I'm not sure how much involvement Jack had there. Its quite good.

All of those courses were well conceived, but lacked a bit of flow because of being tough hole after tough hole without any opportunity for relaxation or breather. They go on the other side of the balance that I've mentioned for courses that offer so much width/room to become less interesting at times. Jack has done a lot of good stuff, but I'm not sure how much really gets into the great level. I still like his older work better--Muirfield Village, Castle Pines, Valhalla, Sherwood, Shoal Creek, and Sycamore Hills being my favorites.  
« Last Edit: July 16, 2011, 09:49:42 AM by Andy Troeger »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back