Tom Doak is obviously playing too much golf

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

Any time there's a compromise entailing artistic license, it can't be easy, irrespective of who and how talented the parties are..

And, I'd imagine that the more talented the parties, the more difficult the colaboration, unless they've come to a mutual understanding.

Have you seen many statues commemorating a committee or joint venture ?

Beware of the man who builds monuments to himself.

In the U.S. those commemorative statues aren't built by the subject, but, you should have known that, even in Chicago.

Ignoring the back-handed compliment, the United Center has two distinctive statues surrounding its perimeter, one of MJ, the other of a number of famous Blackhawks.  Part of the reason I prefer hockey to basketball is due to the team nature of the sport, as reflected in these particular commemorations.

I also recall a few statutory references to Lewis and Clark from a few stops on a Oregon to Chicago drive from a few years back.  I think Sacajawea made have made her way into a few of them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

Their are statues of men who made great contributions and or sacrifices to/for our country, and then there are statues erected by local jock sniffers.

I was hoping you'd understand the distinction

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

I recommend you reread the Old Mac photo thread from a little while back, there's some good commentary in there from some of the key players:  

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44207.0.html

[Redacted]

While we're on the topic of reading comprehension, I'd suggest you go back and reread my first post in this thread.  The point made was that if the collaborators are willing to view the project as a team effort, the result may turn out as greater than the product any one participant could produce.  If they are not, by definition, you cannot call it a "collaboration."

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

Their are statues of men who made great contributions and or sacrifices to/for our country, and then there are statues erected by local jock sniffers.

I was hoping you'd understand the distinction

In that case, here are the three statues with the most poignancy to me:

The Brothers in Arms (commissioned by my fraternity to honor those who served in WWI - http://nez.alphadeltaphi.org/Default.aspx?tabid=819)

The Iwo Jima Memorial

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial

[Tom_Doak]

Sven:

I'd appreciate it if you would take down the quote from Mr. Nicklaus.  I addressed it at the time and don't need to go there again.  Sebonack WAS a collaboration, but it's harder to collaborate the more often you find yourselves on different pages.  Neither Jack nor I was ever going to be as happy with it as if we'd designed the whole course ourselves -- that was a given -- but the client seems VERY happy with it and a lot of people rate it pretty highly, for what it's worth.

I'm not going to watch the video of my own swing, but whatever the hell it looks like on tape, I striped the tee shot on Red #1.  Pretty good since it was literally the first swing I have made since I was in Kunming in early December.  We didn't go pick them up but I would guess it was right there with Ben's and Bill's, even though both are way better players than me.  Ben did ice our client Rich Mack by stopping him just before he was about to make his swing ... Rich is a very good player but he was nervous about opening tee shot duties, and Ben didn't make it any easier for him!

I played pretty well today, actually.  It was better-ball match play so I didn't add up my score, but I probably shot 81-82 on the Red course, and Fred Muller and I defeated both Freeman-Policano and Peper-Fay, before going down to Bill Shean and Larry Lambrecht on the Blue course this afternoon.

[Sven Nilsen]

Tom:

Will do.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

Their are statues of men who made great contributions and or sacrifices to/for our country, and then there are statues erected by local jock sniffers.

I was hoping you'd understand the distinction

In that case, here are the three statues with the most poignancy to me:

The Brothers in Arms (commissioned by my fraternity to honor those who served in WWI - http://nez.alphadeltaphi.org/Default.aspx?tabid=819)

The Iwo Jima Memorial

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial



And you equate those statues to a collaborative effort in the context we've been discussing ?   
As statues where we should "beware of men who build monuments to themselves"
Obviously you don't get it.

How did tour claim that Sebonack wasn't a collaborative effort work out for you ?

[Michael George]

Brad - Thanks for the reply.  I understand your desire not to influence other ratings.  I was just trying to put the ratings for both courses that you posted in context.

I have been incredibly impressed by the pictures and am plannig to get down there in early April to play both courses.   I certainly agree with Tom Doak's opinion that it does not look like Florida.   I have been trying to decide what it looks like.  Not sure there is anything in the US that has this look. 

For those that have been down there, including Brad and Tom, what would be the closest comparison to the site.  Australia Sand Belt?

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

Short answer, there have been many golf design collaborations that:

A.  Did not result in the dulling of the creative spirit (your words); and

B.  Produced an end result that was greater than the result that could have been produced by any one of the participants.

It comes down to ego and a willingness to listen to the ideas and suggestions of others.  Some people are capable of this (I would not include you in this group), others aren't.  

As for Sebonack, the fact that Pascucci thought that he needed to define a "tie-breaking" rule is evidence enough that he had concerns about at least one of the participants willingness to work with the other.  Its the concept of a cooperative spirit that made MacKenzie and Jones a successful team.  It starts with a simple principle, which is that the two parties involved actually want to work together.

And yes, I believe the three statues I noted (and the Lewis and Clark statues noted above) are indicative of a celebration of brotherhood, service, leadership and sacrifice, all traits of a successful collaborative endeavor.

Sven

 

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

Short answer, there have been many golf design collaborations that:

A.  Did not result in the dulling of the creative spirit (your words); and

Could you name them ?
And don't forget the "mutual understanding" issue.  Ie. C&C

B.  Produced an end result that was greater than the result that could have been produced by any one of the participants.
How would you either know or evaluate that

It comes down to ego and a willingness to listen to the ideas and suggestions of others.  
Some people are capable of this (I would not include you in this group), others aren't.  

More proof that you don't know what you're talking about


As for Sebonack, the fact that Pascucci thought that he needed to define a "tie-breaking" rule is evidence enough that he had concerns about at least one of the participants willingness to work with the other.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Remember, you were the one who declared that Doak and Nicklaus had defined roles
And you were dead wrong on that as well

 Its the concept of a cooperative spirit that made MacKenzie and Jones a successful team.  

Once again you don't know what you're talking about

Think of Mike Keiser and ______

It starts with a simple principle, which is that the two parties involved actually want to work together.

Artistically, it doesn't happen.   To repeat, you don't know what you're talking about when's it comes to creativity

And yes, I believe the three statues I noted (and the Lewis and Clark statues noted above) are indicative of a celebration of brotherhood, service, leadership and sacrifice, all traits of a successful collaborative endeavor.

"Collaboration indicates cooperation between specific parties, those people didn't know each other and didn't work TOGETHER

Sven

 

 

[William_G]

Pat:

Short answer, there have been many golf design collaborations that:

A.  Did not result in the dulling of the creative spirit (your words); and

Could you name them ?
And don't forget the "mutual understanding" issue.  Ie. C&C

B.  Produced an end result that was greater than the result that could have been produced by any one of the participants.
How would you either know or evaluate that

It comes down to ego and a willingness to listen to the ideas and suggestions of others.  
Some people are capable of this (I would not include you in this group), others aren't.  

More proof that you don't know what you're talking about


As for Sebonack, the fact that Pascucci thought that he needed to define a "tie-breaking" rule is evidence enough that he had concerns about at least one of the participants willingness to work with the other.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Remember, you were the one who declared that Doak and Nicklaus had defined roles
And you were dead wrong on that as well

 Its the concept of a cooperative spirit that made MacKenzie and Jones a successful team.  

Once again you don't know what you're talking about

Think of Mike Keiser and ______

It starts with a simple principle, which is that the two parties involved actually want to work together.

Artistically, it doesn't happen.   To repeat, you don't know what you're talking about when's it comes to creativity

And yes, I believe the three statues I noted (and the Lewis and Clark statues noted above) are indicative of a celebration of brotherhood, service, leadership and sacrifice, all traits of a successful collaborative endeavor.[color=]

"Collaboration indicates cooperation between specific parties, those people didn't know each other and didn't work TOGETHER[/color]

Sven

Pat,

Your ink is ruining this thread, but you are getting closer to 30,000

[Sven Nilsen]

First, the "mutual understanding" concept you keep throwing out is a horseshit carve out on your part.  Basically what you're saying is that any two people that have learned to work well together cannot be used as an example of a successful collaboration.  You're ignoring the key ingredient in all of this, that is the part about learning to work together, or being able to reach that mutual understanding.  Hence my statement regarding immutable personalities.  

You live in a black and white world Pat, one with hard and fast rules such as "collaboration dulls the creative spirit."  What you neglect to take into account are the people involved.  That rule works when certain personalities are involved, it is a falsehood when the right people are part of the team.  Some people are capable of working with others, some people can't.

But then again, I wouldn't expect a man with your self-inflated ego to be able to comprehend the concepts of learning from others and sharing ideas.  And just because you use colored ink, it doesn't make you an expert on creativity.

Second, you are not accurately citing my statement regarding the work at Sebonack.  Saying something is less like one thing than another is different than saying it is one or the other.  A scholar with your esteemed expertise in reading comprehension should have picked up on that.  I chose those words carefully and would appreciate it if they were used in the context with which they were delivered instead of being bastardized to support your endlessly argumentative nature.

But while we're on the topic, Nicklaus himself has said that they produced a better course than they could have if they had been working alone:  " I think we did a better course with Doak than I would have done by myself and vice versa."  We're touching on a sensitive area, as the other quotes I'd like to include in this thread regarding that pairing have been deleted per the request of one of the participants.  I hope Tom doesn't mind my including this cite, as I believe it speaks of the pairing in a positive light.  

To anticipate your rebuttal, the point being made is that the working relationship was not ideal, and if the result of an sub-par working relationship is deemed very good, one can only think that the result would have been that much better if all parties involved had been a bit more flexible regarding the collaborative process.  

Sven

As always in a ... collaboration: One has to like each other. As simple as that. —Klaus Schulze

It is the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed. —Charles Darwin

Many ideas grow better when transplanted into another mind than the one where they sprang up. —Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Jud_T]

Artistically, it doesn't happen.   To repeat, you don't know what you're talking about when's it comes to creativity

There goes Second City, Saturday Night Live, the Groundlings and the entire history of jazz improvisation from Bebop on down...

[Sven Nilsen]

Artistically, it doesn't happen.   To repeat, you don't know what you're talking about when's it comes to creativity

There goes Second City, Saturday Night Live, the Groundlings and the entire history of jazz improvisation from Bebop on down...

Jud:

I'm waiting for NYC to put up a SNL cast statue in Rockefeller Center.  Until then, I'm not convinced the show was ever any good (note the past tense, it really hasn't been good since Ferrell left).

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

First, the "mutual understanding" concept you keep throwing out is a horseshit carve out on your part.  

No it's not, it means that they've formed a business relationship.[/b][/size]

Basically what you're saying is that any two people that have learned to work well together cannot be used as an example of a successful collaboration.  

No, I'm saying that business partners are the exception because in truth, you don't know who the creative party was/is with regard to a specific course, hole and/or feature.

You don't know, with respect to the "creative" aspect, who's responsible for what.

You're ignoring the key ingredient in all of this, that is the part about learning to work together, or being able to reach that mutual understanding.  Hence my statement regarding immutable personalities.  

Learning to work together has nothing to do with the creative process.
Compromise doesn't enhance the creative process, it stifles it.

You live in a black and white world Pat, one with hard and fast rules such as "collaboration dulls the creative spirit."  
What you neglect to take into account are the people involved.  

I don't neglect it, I discount it.

If I'm spending millions building a golf course, I don't want Tom Doak's draftsman, his shaper, his purchasing agent, his grow in manager or his business manager, I want Tom Doak for the creative process.

That rule works when certain personalities are involved, it is a falsehood when the right people are part of the team.  
Some people are capable of working with others, some people can't.

It's got nothing to do with the creative process.
Committees don't design golf courses, architects do.
I know, you'll cite Old Macdonald, and I'd venture to say that THE creative member, the member responsible for the finished product was Tom Doak.
I don't know if there was a written contract, but, if there was, I'd bet it had Tom Doak's name on it, not Brad Klein's and George Bahto's.

But then again, I wouldn't expect a man with your self-inflated ego to be able to comprehend the concepts of learning from others and sharing ideas.  And just because you use colored ink, it doesn't make you an expert on creativity.


If I hired an architect, you can be damn well assured that I wouldn't hire an architect and hope that he'd get "on the job training" from others.

I'm not interested in hiring an architect and hoping that he'll learn from others and share ideas.
I want a creative architect, who's self reliant, who can deliver me a high quality product, not a compromised effort.

Second, you are not accurately citing my statement regarding the work at Sebonack.  


Yes I am, you claimed that Nicklaus's and Doak's work at Sebonack was NOT a collaboration, that they had seperate, "defined roles".
From the horse's mouth, Tom Doak informed you that it was a collaboration.
It doesn't get clearer than that.

Saying something is less like one thing than another is different than saying it is one or the other.  A scholar with your esteemed expertise in reading comprehension should have picked up on that.  I chose those words carefully and would appreciate it if they were used in the context with which they were delivered instead of being bastardized to support your endlessly argumentative nature.

You were clear as a bell and dead wrong, you stated that Nicklaus's and Doak's efforts were not collaborative, that instead, they had defined roles.
Tom Doak, himself, told you that you were wrong.  I know it's a tough pill to swallow, but, you were dead wrong.

But while we're on the topic, Nicklaus himself has said that they produced a better course than they could have if they had been working alone:  

Are you serious ?  Of course he did.  Do you really believe that ?  I don't.

Before you answer that question, let me ask you another.  Have you played Sebonack ?

" I think we did a better course with Doak than I would have done by myself and vice versa."

I'd agree with the first part of that quote.

I was one of the people who advised friends close to Pascucci to have him reconsider his choice, before Doak was involved, and Tom can confirm that.

We're touching on a sensitive area, as the other quotes I'd like to include in this thread regarding that pairing have been deleted per the request of one of the participants.  I hope Tom doesn't mind my including this cite, as I believe it speaks of the pairing in a positive light.

Sven, I agree that it's getting touchy, so let me just say that you really don't know what you're talking about regarding Sebonack and leave it at that.
I could have said that you just don't know what you're talking about and not confine it to Sebonack, but, I figured I'd throw you a bone    

To anticipate your rebuttal, the point being made is that the working relationship was not ideal, and if the result of an sub-par working relationship is deemed very good, one can only think that the result would have been that much better if all parties involved had been a bit more flexible regarding the collaborative process.  

There are so many flaws in that argument.  Where to begin.
Okay, I know where.  What if there's a significant disparity in the creative process of the two individuals involved ?   Then what ?
Compromise will produce and inferior product, that's what.

As always in a ... collaboration: One has to like each other. As simple as that. —Klaus Schulze

It is the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed. —Charles Darwin

Many ideas grow better when transplanted into another mind than the one where they sprang up. —Oliver Wendell Holmes

Talk is cheap.

What artists painted by compromising with other artists ?

Here's one for you.

God forbid you ever need brain surgery, don't go to the best possible surgeon you can find, go to a surgeon who will work with and learn from several other surgeons as they perform the operation on your brain.

The artistic license, creativity, is compromised when collaboration is the working arrangement.

Me, I want the brightest, most talented surgeon I can find and I don't care how many associates he has, I want his hands at the other end of that scalpel

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

You've missed the entire point of this conversation. 

"Depends on who the collaborators are."  That was the statement.  In your world, as you noted, you "discount" the people.  I find that to be an extremely sad statement and misguided statement.  I think Tom himself would tell you that every project he's worked on has been a collaboration and he's only as good as the team he has working with him, and I'd believe him when he says it.  What we're getting at is not whether or not people are working together, but whether or not the parties involved are capable of working with others.

I'll take two world class doctors who know how to work together over one of equal skill working solo.  In the case they open me up and find something unexpected, I've got twice the experience working for me. 

But I would take the solo guy over two alpha-dog wannabe know-it-alls that have no chance of ever cooperating.

In any case, I hope the team of doctors supporting whoever has the scalpel is on board and is capable of adding their expertise to the collaboration.

By the way, have you played Barnbougle Dunes and St. Andrew's Beach?  If not, getting down there and learning a bit more about those projects might open your eyes as to the benefits of a collaboration that works.

I never said every collaboration is going to work, but when the right people are involved the result can be greater than the sum of the parts.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

You've missed the entire point of this conversation. 

"Depends on who the collaborators are."  That was the statement.  In your world, as you noted, you "discount" the people.  I find that to be an extremely sad statement and misguided statement.  I think Tom himself would tell you that every project he's worked on has been a collaboration and he's only as good as the team he has working with him, and I'd believe him when he says it.  What we're getting at is not whether or not people are working together, but whether or not the parties involved are capable of working with others.

Sven,

Not true, you specifically stated that Jack and Tom did not collaborate, that they had defined roles, not collaborative roles, and we know you were wrong, dead wrong.

Secondly, this was never about who was driving the bulldozer, it was on who designed the golf course, who the creative force/source was.

Please stop trying to weasel out of your glaring error by changing the

I'll take two world class doctors who know how to work together over one of equal skill working solo.  In the case they open me up and find something unexpected, I've got twice the experience working for me. 

Your failure to acknowledge and deal with reality is mind boggling.
Would you cite a hospital where two world class surgeons with the same sub-specialty operate together ?  ?  ?


But I would take the solo guy over two alpha-dog wannabe know-it-alls that have no chance of ever cooperating.

You're probably talking about 99 % of the surgeons in the world.
Again, your lack of real world experience is telling.

You have neither a clue about the creative process in architecture or the real world in the OR.

In any case, I hope the team of doctors supporting whoever has the scalpel is on board and is capable of adding their expertise to the collaboration.

That's not how it works.
The "Master" teaches, the "pupil" learns

By the way, have you played Barnbougle Dunes and St. Andrew's Beach? 

No

If not, getting down there and learning a bit more about those projects might open your eyes as to the benefits of a collaboration that works.

Before I get there, would you outline, with great specificity, who did what ?
That way I can evaluate how each feature turned out


I never said every collaboration is going to work, but when the right people are involved the result can be greater than the sum of the parts.

Perhaps one way to determine if collaboration is a productive methodology would be to ask Tom Doak if he'd be anxious to engage in another collaborative project, versus working solomente 

You have so much to learn and my time is so limited

[JC Urbina]

Pat
Do you really think that Alister Mackenzie had absolute design control of Royal Melbourne a half a world away.

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

You've missed the entire point of this conversation. 

"Depends on who the collaborators are."  That was the statement.  In your world, as you noted, you "discount" the people.  I find that to be an extremely sad statement and misguided statement.  I think Tom himself would tell you that every project he's worked on has been a collaboration and he's only as good as the team he has working with him, and I'd believe him when he says it.  What we're getting at is not whether or not people are working together, but whether or not the parties involved are capable of working with others.

Sven,

Not true, you specifically stated that Jack and Tom did not collaborate, that they had defined roles, not collaborative roles, and we know you were wrong, dead wrong.

Secondly, this was never about who was driving the bulldozer, it was on who designed the golf course, who the creative force/source was.

Please stop trying to weasel out of your glaring error by changing the

I'll take two world class doctors who know how to work together over one of equal skill working solo.  In the case they open me up and find something unexpected, I've got twice the experience working for me. 

Your failure to acknowledge and deal with reality is mind boggling.
Would you cite a hospital where two world class surgeons with the same sub-specialty operate together ?  ?  ?


But I would take the solo guy over two alpha-dog wannabe know-it-alls that have no chance of ever cooperating.

You're probably talking about 99 % of the surgeons in the world.
Again, your lack of real world experience is telling.

You have neither a clue about the creative process in architecture or the real world in the OR.

In any case, I hope the team of doctors supporting whoever has the scalpel is on board and is capable of adding their expertise to the collaboration.

That's not how it works.
The "Master" teaches, the "pupil" learns

By the way, have you played Barnbougle Dunes and St. Andrew's Beach? 

No

If not, getting down there and learning a bit more about those projects might open your eyes as to the benefits of a collaboration that works.

Before I get there, would you outline, with great specificity, who did what ?
That way I can evaluate how each feature turned out


I never said every collaboration is going to work, but when the right people are involved the result can be greater than the sum of the parts.

Perhaps one way to determine if collaboration is a productive methodology would be to ask Tom Doak if he'd be anxious to engage in another collaborative project, versus working solomente 

You have so much to learn and my time is so limited

Pat:

If Tom answered that question, I think he'd say he considers every one of his projects to be a collaboration.  These days, I would guess there a few past partners that he would not want to work with again, but that number is outweighed by the number of folks with who the collaborative process was a success.  Hence, I bet he'd buy into the idea that it depends on the people involved.

Sven

[Ted Sturges]

The artistic license, creativity, is compromised when collaboration is the working arrangement.

Me, I want the brightest, most talented surgeon I can find and I don't care how many associates he has, I want his hands at the other end of that scalpel [/b][/size][/color]

[/quote]

Sadly, if said bright and talented surgeon had ever frequented this website (and specifically this thread), once you were under anesthesia, he would likely surgically remove your fingers with said scalpel to keep you off of your keyboard and end the invidious march to 40,000 "take no prisoners, leave no friends behind" posts.  Pat your enormous need to be "right" has done you in.  Sadly, the wealth of knowledge you have, which at one point was valued by members of this site, has been drowned at the bottom of the poor behavior and need to be right water hazard.

TS

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
Do you really think that Alister Mackenzie had absolute design control of Royal Melbourne a half a world away.

Jim,

I'm not qualified to comment on RM, but, common sense would seem to indicate that distance can be an impediment when you have to travel across Oceans in the early 20th Century.  But a lot may depend upon your on-site project managers/superintendents.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If Tom answered that question

"IF" he answered the question ? ?  ?
He was unequivocal and stated that the joint venture at Sebonack was a collaboration and NOT a project where each had separate "defined roles" as you claimed.

I think he'd say he considers every one of his projects to be a collaboration. 

Please spare us the lunacy.
In terms of the creative aspect, Tom is "THE" architect.
In terms of "collaboration Tom was referencing the respective roles of the team members, not the creative force behind the design.
Just admit you're wrong and move on with it.  It's not the first time and it won't be the last

These days, I would guess there a few past partners that he would not want to work with again, but that number is outweighed by the number of folks with who the collaborative process was a success.  Hence, I bet he'd buy into the idea that it depends on the people involved.
I'd disagree.
What does he have to gain ?
Why dilute your product and your brand ?

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

Who do you think more time together on site:

Doak and Nicklaus at Sebonack; or

MacKenzie and Jones at Augusta?

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

Who do you think more time together on site:

Doak and Nicklaus at Sebonack; or

MacKenzie and Jones at Augusta?


How would you be able to evaluate my answer ?

Do you have the logs ?
Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Avoidance, a classic mucci technique.

Just give it a shot, no one's going to lynch you if you get it wrong.