Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ran Morrissett on August 12, 2015, 04:14:51 PM
-
That’s right – Jack Nicklaus.
No more appropriate Feature Interview to post during the week of the PGA Championship than with a five time winner of the event!
The single biggest challenge for all architects is securing good projects (good land + good owner), so what a spectacular advantage Nicklaus Design enjoys in that regard. Nobody else made the concession at Birkdale (still the greatest act of sportsmanship of which I am aware), the 1 iron at Pebble in 1972, the clutch - though futile - long bomb on 18 at Turnberry in 1977, the eagle putt and then near hole out at 15 and 16 at Augusta in 1986. So on and so on, decade after decade.
This lengthy Feature Interview, which we opt to present in its entirety versus spreading out over two months, was conducted over several months. Joel Stewart and I worked on the questions which Joel submitted to Scott Tolley in the Nicklaus organization. As Nicklaus jetted around (one of the trips was to Asia), Scott taped his answers. Back and forth ensued and now you can read the finished product. One thing is for sure: Nicklaus, at age 75, is still on the go. As in always. Pretty amazing.
As chronicled in the May River profile on this site, his design style has evolved. He freely admits he first built courses that fit his game. Move ahead into the 1990s and you get my favorite Nicklaus course, Cabo del Sol in Mexico. Next personal favorite is the low profile May River. That’s two wildly disparate properties! In the United States, Nicklaus Design has worked in 39 (!) states. In fact, he mentions the 27 hole Governor’s Club outside of Chapel Hill, North Carolina in one of his answers, site of many a Morrissett Cup as Mom and Dad initially retired there. When he tries something really different like at Dismal River, everyone cries, ‘That’s not a Nicklaus!’ Such is the price for having done so many courses that people leap to stereotype your work.
(http://golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CDS1617.jpg)
Cabo del Sol is an intoxicating mix of cacti, sea, topography, and strategy.
Of course, Nicklaus Design extends globally. In fact, they have worked in two more countries (41) than states in America. :o When I saw his work in Malaysia, across from Singapore on Bintan and China in the mid-1990s, they were invariably superior to everything else in the region. How he tacked the golfer up and over a hillside at Chung Shan was superb. At the time, the course was carved out of a jungle and the place was gorgeous. Sadly, I have seen more recent photos that show buildings hugging the perimeter that mar what was an awesome playing experience at that time. That’s not Nicklaus’s fault – he gave the owners a great course. Indeed, one of the highlights of this Feature Interview is his candid responses on the owner/architect relationship and building courses specific to their needs.
Ironically, one of my favorite responses contains, ‘While it isn’t exactly the answer you were looking for, … .’ That’s the beauty of being Jack Nicklaus – you get to say what you think. Unlike other sport superstars, Nicklaus has used his influence to try and expand and improve his sport. Remember the Cayman ball and the furrowed bunkers? I loved both concepts and admire him for trying.
I have met him twice and he has said the same thing both times, ‘Hi, I’m Jack Nicklaus.’ The second time at The Carolina Hotel I suavely shrieked, ‘I know who you are!’ but it’s a mark of the man that he introduces himself in that manner. The way he comports himself - in victory and defeat – is exemplary in the truest sense of the word. That’s what heroes are for: to show us how to be the best that we can be at all times.
Hope you enjoy this month’s Feature Interview with - as Peter Allis use to stay in that low, gravelly voice - The Great Man.
Best,
-
BRAVO Ran!
-
Splendid. Many thanks. Well done.
Atb
-
Around the beginning of 2015 a discussion began about possibly interviewing Jack Nicklaus and the process began. When we received an email that Jack would do the interview, we had been warned that his passion for architecture would be very evident. What we did not know is it would turn out to be one of the most comprehensive interviews Jack has done on architecture.
This process took several months mainly due to his travel schedule. Receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor, the opening of a new wing at the USGA museum, his commitments at the Masters and his tournament at Muirfield Village along with several trips overseas, we finally completed the interview.
An interview this extensive could not have happened without numerous people assisting from inside the Nicklaus organization. First and foremost, Scott Tolley who is in charge of corporate communications for the Nicklaus Companies. Jim Mandville graciously assisted with some photographs including a few that go way back to the beginning of Jacks career in architecture. Also Jim Lipe, Chris Cochran and Brittany Miller.
I’ve been fortunate to watch Jack in his heyday as the world’s greatest golfer. The first time I followed him at length was at Pebble Beach in the 1972 US Open when he was paired with Julius Boros and an amateur named Lanny Wadkins. Now as an architect I’ve been fortunate to play many of his courses. It was a pleasure to do this interview and like all on GCA I’m grateful for his lifelong commitment to golf.
-
Ran & Joel -
Well done!
DT
-
My thanks too, gents. Reading that was a genuine pleasure, and, because Mr. Nicklaus is as straightforward as ever, it was educational too. For me, the most interesting and important answer was in reference to the vocation/job -- which was all about serving the client and not his ego. (There can be a whole long thread just on that, i.e. on what Mr N means by it, on what it might mean in general and more philosophically, the results of that etc etc.)
Thanks again. Excellent work. And by the way, thanks for not fooling us; for one horrible second before I clicked on your post, I was sure you were referring not to Jack Nicklaus but to yourself!
Peter
-
A sincere thank-you to Ran, Joel, Jack Nicklaus and everyone who worked to make this happen.
A great read.
-
Fantastic stuff! Thanks Ran and Joel for doing this. Of course thanks to the game's greatest player for being interviewed. How about his recollection of driving 18 all four rounds! I know it was the small ball but it was steel and persimmon! Jack was crazy long, and the best putter. 1986 Masters the greatest tournament ever. Oh, he was 46!
-
Enjoyed the interview with Mr. Nicklaus. It was nice to see that he's still passionate about golf when it comes to his knowledge of architecture. Too often, he can come across as if he doesn't care about the game, but he obviously has developed a passion for architecture (even if his courses are divisive around here).
Thanks for posting.
-
Ran: Well Done!
Jack appears to be very passionate about gca and his objectives in course design are admirable.
One has to realize that when a person is recognized as the greatest ever in one profession that it is perhaps unfair to view anything less than being the greatest in another profession as being unsuccessful. He has his great designs and not so great designs but he always did a lot more than simply adding his name to a course.
-
good interview.
I like the part about Dye and Nicklaus saying that golf is more fun when played downhill. Heresy to a lot of people on this website, but I agree with them.
-
I really enjoyed the interview. Thank you!
-
Well done, thanks.
-
Its a great interview.
Drilling down on a few point.
1. Pete Dye used the $40,000 fee for Harbour Town and put it back into the course. Funny.
2. He hasn't played Pine Valley since 1961 and would like to return. This must have been on his honeymoon?
3. He agreed that no changes on the Old Course should have been made.
4. He reluctantly agreed that free formed (Mackenzie) bunker style at Augusta was better but qualified it.
5. Unlike Harry Colt he connects holes with par 3's.
-
Well done Ran and Joel! Excellent Q&A. Thanks.
-
Great job guys
"Is there a course you'd like to see for the first time?"
"None that I can think of"
I absolutely cannot relate to that statement.
Jack needs to hang out on GCA more.... ;) ;D
-
Terrific addition to the best section on the site! Thanks to everyone involved.
-
Ran and Joel,
Thank you very much for doing this. I grew up idolizing Jack Nicklaus the golfer and trying to emulate his swing with obviously limited success. ;) But who else better to learn from as a kid than the instructions offered in his book, "The Greatest Game of All"?
As a golf course architect, I believe it's fascinating to see how Nicklaus has evolved over time and one could almost do a thesis on the obvious changes to his work in different eras. In recent years, it's been similarly fascinating to see how his co-design work at Sebonack has influenced designs which followed; it's almost as if he sees the need to offer something more "minimalistic" than earlier efforts yet Jack being Jack, stubbornly (and probably rightly) insists that many courses called minimalist are anything but.
Jack still seems to view most architecture through the eyes of the skilled, competitive golfer, but it's been refreshingly illustrative to see the refinements he's made to his craft to accommodate the rest of us.
Great work Joel and Ran...thanks again!
-
Drilling down on a few point.
3. He agreed that no changes on the Old Course should have been made.
This was the most bothersome point of the interview to me. At the time the proposed changes to The Old Course were announced, Jack would not say anything publicly against them -- he even said something a few days later to the effect that the 11th green should have been softened many years earlier.
Up to that point, Bob Cupp, Jack's former associate and the President of the ASGCA at the time, had expressed outrage to me in private about the changes, and promised the ASGCA would take a forceful position. But Bob was not going to take a strong position on anything that might contradict Jack ... so the ASGCA waited and waited, and then took no position, and had a bunch of individual members issue their own wishy-washy assessments.
The European Institute of Golf Course Architects had its own conflict, that one of its board members was the consultant on the job. Without a strong statement from the ASGCA, therefore, the whole protest fizzled.
Jack probably knows little or nothing about any of this stuff that went on behind the scenes, but if he'd actually said something against the changes at the time, it could have made a big difference.
-
Ran,
This is just awesomely terrific. A great read and nice job indeed!!!
-
Great job guys
"Is there a course you'd like to see for the first time?"
"None that I can think of"
I absolutely cannot relate to that statement.
Jack needs to hang out on GCA more.... ;) ;D
When I was a Dornoch last week I noticed a picture of Jack on the first tee in the pro shop. My caddie, Martin Macleod, actually caddied for him in late July 2014 when Nicklaus played it for the first time. Said he asked lots of questions about the bunkering. He teed off with nobody around and the whole town was there. Y the 16th green.
-
Tom. This question was in our initial interview and we didn't want to push it.
We followed up with a question about the up coming changes to Turnberry but he declined to answer as he had not seen the routing and didn't know the specifics.
We had already asked the other St. Andrews questions and felt we had to move on.
-
Firstly, what an excellent interview. I learned a great deal. The text reinforces something foreign to me but seemingly ever-present in those that succeed at the highest echelons of their profession; an ego of ultimate self-belief no matter the circumstance. Doubt doesn't seem to impede Jack Nicklaus, nor does reflection upon impetus or inspiration. In this way he is very similar to Tiger (or I should say Tiger to him).
I read a specific paragraph that had equal parts of positive and negative. I'd like to break it down.
I think we have to be careful at times when labeling people minimalists. You can’t confuse a look with actual minimalism. My feeling is that minimalism is finding a golf course and utilizing the property almost 100 percent...
What a fantastic way of describing the modern minimalist movement. It is NOT about furry bunker edges. If the goal is to break down what the modern golden age of design has wrought, I think one of the last aspects of the study should be the aesthetic.
...as we did at Dismal River. We moved virtually zero dirt at Dismal River and in the end, unfortunately got much criticism because the greens were too severe. The greens were what was there. That was minimalist. I was then asked to adjust the greens and that, to me, was still minimalistic but it definitely required moving some dirt.
Jack starts off giving a fantastic definition of minimalism only then to pigeon-hole its tenets into the movement of material. This shows a lack of care for the design tenets of minimalism. I would've liked to have seen a more nuanced version of this discussion from him. Especially with his and his crew's involvement with Renaissance at Sebonack.
I’ve seen many of the guys call themselves minimalists, yet they have moved a great deal of dirt to create the look of a minimalistic golf course. I’ve done many, many golf courses that are far more minimalistic than what some of the minimalists do.
This strikes me as simple gamesmanship from a sporting great. It still undercuts and marginalizes what the great practitioners of the minimalist movement have done. If Jack wants to define what minimalism is versus his competition, that's his prerogative. However, there is an intellectual hazard in marginalizing and attempting to define minimalism when his own "minimalist" courses look more contrived than his contemporaries. He owes no answer to any of us, of course, but it seems he is just defending his own brand rather than reflecting upon how his attempts at minimalism actually worked.
On other occasions where it is necessary to move dirt to create a golf course, that’s OK. Because your objective is not to make sure that you don’t move any dirt; the objective is to produce a good golf course for your client. Sometimes you can find it and sometimes you have to create it, or a combination thereof.
Thus ends the shit sandwich that is the modern style of negative information delivery. Jack starts us off with a generic but wonderfully salient version of golf course architecture minimalism. The two middle stanzas make a concerted attempt to defend his work alongside the contemporaries of the minimalist movement. I think he fails in this defense. It serves to highlight what I would call a failure of his firm to understand minimalism. It defines that failure as a willingness to not move material and then defines the work as "far more minimalistic than what some of the minimalists do." As mentioned previously, I would like to read a more detailed transcript of Jack's comments regarding the best sites he's been given. The paragraph ends with another well-worded and concise explanation of how minimalism should work.
I understand he owes no explanation to us, but I think he contradicts himself in the paragraph. The tendency to defend against perception and criticism (a trait of competitiveness) overwhelms what could and should be easy self-reflection. I was disappointed not only with his reactions to a line of questioning on minimalism, but also to his aloofness to inspiration. To say that he wasn't thinking of any specific traits of classic golf holes when he designed certain elements of his own golf holes strikes me as arrogant.
All-in-all, a great get by Ran and something that members of the site should be proud. This little grouping of internet trolls looking to make a difference in the golf architecture world is big enough to attract the best player of all time. Well done.
-
Ben - very good post and analysis/breakdown. I might differ only in taking a simpler approach, ie when I read that section, I was struck by many of the same notions you were; but my overriding impression was that JN was a) stressing the value of not being wedded to a particular design philosophy/approach (which, off Tom's post, may be how many current architects market themselves) and b) that he conflated/blurred the distinction between minimalism and naturalism (which in fairness I think the majority of architects also do).
Peter
PS - yes, how I wish sometimes that I was born with or knew how to develop that kind of ego healthy self regard!
-
Ben/Peter,
To continue along this vein, I do note the amazing ability to self confidently, perhaps arrogantly, state one's opinion's strongly and with a related inability to concede error, doubt, or failure.
But the facts indicate that Jack does actually listen to a degree. The evolution of his own designs from courses that simply suited his left-to-right game to courses that simply suited a top-level player's game (both mostly penal), to the "kinder, gentler Bear" courses that were/are much more playable, to the more naturalistic type courses espoused by minimalists, (whether dirt was moved or not) in recent years.
Whether this is simply being a dedicated follower of fashion or attempts by Jack and his team to respond to criticism over time is unclear but there is no question his basic designs changed and evolved over the past 35 or so years he's been practicing.
-
I too struggle with supposed minimalism.
I think Jack is right. His job is to build the best course in accordance with his clients brief and budget.
He's adapted to market changes over the years.
Finally, are there many architects who aren't self assured of their own opinion?
-
I too struggle with supposed minimalism.
I think Jack is right. His job is to build the best course in accordance with his clients brief and budget.
He's adapted to market changes over the years.
Finally, are there many architects who aren't self assured of their own opinion?
I struggle to understand how anyone struggles with the concept of minimalism. Earth moving has nothing to do with it.
Jack Nicklaus is a smart man. I've said that for a long time. He recognises when he's being usurped and has the presence of mind to move on, melding his own intuitive ideas with those who are rising above him. I'll always give him plus marks for that, if not what I saw with my own eyes at Gleneagles last year.
-
Away you go then, explain minimalism to me.
-
Away you go then, explain minimalism to me.
It really doesn't take much explaining. To attach as simple a catchphrase to it as possible, less can be more. C'est ca.
So, an example I guess:
The 5th at Hayling is often used as an example of Simpson's minimalist genius. It's circa 160 yards, has a narrow plateau green and has one lone bunker at the front left. The prevailing wind is from the left. It is surrounded by short grass. That is it. That simple bit of not very much is one of the finest par 3's I know of. It does so much with so little. Equally, the simple process of sticking a green on a postage stamp sized bit of earth at Troon created a design classic. Whether earth was or wasn't moved to create either of these holes is of no relevance.
-
For me, the most interesting and important answer was in reference to the vocation/job -- which was all about serving the client and not his ego.
+1
This has always been a fascinating element of for-hire creative endeavors for me. I do not envy the architect, trying to walk the line between serving the client and upholding their creative ideals.
I find it difficult to believe that an ego as healthy as Mr. Nicklaus's is ever truly subjugated, but at the same time, he seems to know how to keep his clients happy and coming back for more.
Great stuff Ran and Joel. Thanks for legging this out.
-
To continue along this vein, I do note the amazing ability to self confidently, perhaps arrogantly, state one's opinion's strongly and with a related inability to concede error, doubt, or failure.
Whether this is simply being a dedicated follower of fashion or attempts by Jack and his team to respond to criticism over time is unclear but there is no question his basic designs changed and evolved over the past 35 or so years he's been practicing.
...this is Jack Nicklaus not Tiger Woods...he didn't get to where he is without extreme self confidence, and a total inability to concede error, doubt or failure. And maybe that exudes a type of arrogance but the years have backed it up. Arrogance enhanced by character is healthy. ( recent years have showed where unbridled arrogance without character can take one :) :) )
Here's the way I see his comments on minimalism etc.
-JN Designs evolved into what it is by housing development courses. I would wager almost any of the courses admired on this site for minimalism could NOT be developed in a housing development due to drainage, roads and other engineering issues so he has often not had the opportunity to just build a course on raw land without negotiating housing and other amenities involved in a multimillion dollar development.
Jack Nicklaus has had several different lead designers and my guess would be these guys had a tremendous influence on his style including the error of the chocolate drops etc. But the courses most on here speak of are the work of Jim Lipe, who is sometimes on this site. I have not seen a course he did that was not a good playable golf course and it fit. I didn't care for some of the work of some of his other leads but it evolved the company. ( my only negative about the JN organization is the unwarranted arrogance ( since you mention arrogance) of some of the associate associate guys in the group. I don't think they got the experience of guys that worked for design build guys and if you check out any of their individual websites now, most if not all of the work will be things they did while at JN.
Probably the greatest golfer ever just gave this 1500 person golf dork website a lengthy interview. We need to appreciate his opinions. He always exudes class in his efforts.
-
Away you go then, explain minimalism to me.
It really doesn't take much explaining. To attach as simple a catchphrase to it as possible, less can be more. C'est ca.
So, an example I guess:
The 5th at Hayling is often used as an example of Simpson's minimalist genius. It's circa 160 yards, has a narrow plateau green and has one lone bunker at the front left. The prevailing wind is from the left. It is surrounded by short grass. That is it. That simple bit of not very much is one of the finest par 3's I know of. It does so much with so little. Equally, the simple process of sticking a green on a postage stamp sized bit of earth at Troon created a design classic. Whether earth was or wasn't moved to create either of these holes is of no relevance.
Paul
Thanks.
My take:
The old guys made the best of what they had at their disposal. The consensus is the courses are all the better for it. I wouldn't disagree with that.
New guys (in this country at least) feel the old guys had the plum land. I wouldn't disagree with that either.
The new guys do a variety of things. From moving lots earth, to bullshit marketing, to selling real estate.
Minimalism in golf course design, to me, falls into the category of bullshit marketing.
The minute any architect you've ever heard of is hired, you no longer (IMO) have a minimalist project due to their fee.
In fact I'd go further and say that minimalist golf course design belongs in the same category as minimalist super cars, minimalist yachts and minimalist mansions. By their very nature, they are expensive to construct and consume meaning that they can never truly be.
Your less is more is about right and shows the concept is a matter of taste. As with the above, lots of expense, labour and extravagance goes into making things look 'minimal'.
I believe it's just fashion and Jack will go with what's getting him hired at any particular time. If that means he wears an expensive suit or an equally expensive pair of distressed jeans to the meeting, that's what he'll do.
-
Ryan,
We agree on much of this. I love minimalism, but equally don't believe it actually exists. Let me explain: minimalism is often sold as the new trend in GCA, a new paradigm, if you like. It isn't. All that is marketing crap. Minimalism is simply the reawakening of classic architectural values. Tom Doak, Coore and Crenshaw etc all belong in the same category as Simspon, Ross, MacKenzie etc, rather than their own separate category. The best modern guys, rather than starting their own movement, are simply embracing timeless qualities which went missing for 50 odd years. Maybe at times they are expanding on those timeless qualities, but doing so doesn't qualify as a separate genre in it's own right. To be fair to these modern guys, they are endlessly praising the ODG's and never pretend to be reinventing the wheel. As always, it tends to be a few 15% folk who plaster the label of minimalism all over the place. It's just good, classic architecture, plain and simple.
-
Probably the greatest golfer ever just gave this 1500 person golf dork website a lengthy interview. We need to appreciate his opinions. He always exudes class in his efforts.
I'm guessing that he didn't give the interview for the 1500 dorks. If there's one thing he knows, it's how to keep himself relevant. He gave it for the 60,000-80,000 visitors this site gets per month. Not sayin', just sayin'.
-
The minute any architect you've ever heard of is hired, you no longer (IMO) have a minimalist project due to their fee.
Really?
Have you been to Sand Hills and Dismal River? I guess maybe not, but if so, what do you think of the three courses there?
Your post is full of black-and-white hyperbole. Yes, every golf course that's built requires a fair amount of work to make it so, but not all projects are the same.
-
The minute any architect you've ever heard of is hired, you no longer (IMO) have a minimalist project due to their fee.
Really?
Have you been to Sand Hills and Dismal River? I guess maybe not, but if so, what do you think of the three courses there?
Your post is full of black-and-white hyperbole. Yes, every golf course that's built requires a fair amount of work to make it so, but not all projects are the same.
Never had that privilege. Closest modern fashionable courses from famous modern architects would be Craighead, Kingsbarns, Castle Stuart and Castle Course. Two I thought were great. Not sure if Castle Stuart was on sand, but the others whilst being very scenic, wouldn't be classed as plum sights, in soil terms anyway.
I find the concept of minimalism in course design difficult to grasp but then I haven't been exposed to US levels of expenditure and beautification. Braid by all accounts didn't stay in one place too long. He spent a minimal amount of time at lots of his courses. I suspect you and others are obsessive and spend inordinate amounts of time with your work.
So if it ain't minimal on cost, ain't minimal on effort and ain't minimal on time, and as Paul says is not about the amount of dirt moved, the term seems to be merely that and means different things to different people. A point I thought Jack made well and certainly better than I've just done.
-
Mike C/Mike Y,
It seems to me that Nicklaus admitted a mea culpa when talking about his early design and how he changed to be more balanced design rather than simply what suited his game. In that at least he concedes he got it wrong.
Niall
-
Congratulations to Ran and Joel on an absolutely terrific interview with Mr. Nicklaus, one of the most interesting in the site's history.
For me, that wonderful piece alone provided more than enough value for my 2015 contribution and I'm guessing I'm not the only one who feels that way.
-
It seems to me that Nicklaus admitted a mea culpa when talking about his early design and how he changed to be more balanced design rather than simply what suited his game. In that at least he concedes he got it wrong.
Agreed but isn't that true with any architect?
He discusses that many of his early jobs are built with the intent of hosting professional tournaments.
-
Have you been to Sand Hills and Dismal River? I guess maybe not, but if so, what do you think of the three courses there?
Your post is full of black-and-white hyperbole. Yes, every golf course that's built requires a fair amount of work to make it so, but not all projects are the same.
Never had that privilege. Closest modern fashionable courses from famous modern architects would be Craighead, Kingsbarns, Castle Stuart and Castle Course. Two I thought were great. Not sure if Castle Stuart was on sand, but the others whilst being very scenic, wouldn't be classed as plum sights, in soil terms anyway.
I find the concept of minimalism in course design difficult to grasp but then I haven't been exposed to US levels of expenditure and beautification. Braid by all accounts didn't stay in one place too long. He spent a minimal amount of time at lots of his courses. I suspect you and others are obsessive and spend inordinate amounts of time with your work.
Ryan:
You are just making things up in your last paragraph. You don't know how much time I spend on site or what I do with it.
You don't really know much about my work at all, if you are comparing it to Kingsbarns or Castle Stuart ... both of which were huge construction projects because they started with ground that didn't have good contour and re-made it entirely, apart from saving the best views. I've done that sort of project, too -- three times out of 35 courses.
For me, minimalism boils down to avoiding earthmoving in the fairways and roughs. Everyone is going to do some shaping and construction on the greens, but that doesn't cost much at all ... it's when you start re-shaping big areas of the site that the numbers start to multiply.
Of course, if you have a site where you have to clear trees, there is a lot of "putting back together" work [and cost] even if you are not changing the contours much at all.
-
Tom
No I don't. And unless you someday build a daily fee course in the UK, sadly never will. Similarly with your approach. I suspect it's meticulous, but perhaps I'm wrong and it's slap dash. I don't believe you're prolific in numbers compared to some, so my hunch is the former, rather than the latter.
Anyway back to the point:
Let me put it a different way. Do you think many architects would have come in and done loads with the Nebraska courses? Even Jack didn't with his.
In addition, would many have gone to Castle Stuart or Kingsbarns and done very little?
If minimalism is referencing earth movement, do we have minimalist architects or minimalist sites?
-
For me, minimalism boils down to avoiding earthmoving in the fairways and roughs. Everyone is going to do some shaping and construction on the greens, but that doesn't cost much at all ... it's when you start re-shaping big areas of the site that the numbers start to multiply.
Of course, if you have a site where you have to clear trees, there is a lot of "putting back together" work [and cost] even if you are not changing the contours much at all.
Tom,
Ben Sims posted on page 1 that minimalism should not be tied to material movement. In that light, I don't understand your comments above.
What is minimalism?
-
A very interesting interview and one that should certainly be archived for future referrence.
That being said, I thought it was fairly clear that Jack Nicklaus is involved with designing golf courses for the fee and as a business and he doesn't seem to be overly interested in the topic.
That's made clear with this quote:
"It’s not my golf course; my job was and always is to do what the owner wants. "
l don't fault him for making a living, but ultimately I question if his work as a designer has been good for the game? For example, in the 1980's his firm was hired to restore Evanston Golf Club north of Chicago (Ross design)...it was a butch job and it took a proper effort by Ron Prichard to bring correct the work a decade ago.
Which brings up his comments on the 4th hole at ANGC...clearly he preferrs the current version as evidenced by his work at the Scarlet Course at Ohio State where he effectively bulldozed an Allister MacKenzie.
He is seemingly moving onto more "natural" looking golf courses in recent years, but it seems like it's primarily window dressing as that is what the clients today want and its the only way he can win jobs over guys like Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, etc.
Mr. Nicklaus surley deserves respect as an all time great athlete and golfer, but after reading the interview I'm strugling to give him a lot of credit as a golf course architect?
-
Pat
I also enjoyed the interview although I must admit I took a different view of it than you did. It seemed to me he is very much into course design even if his ideas didn't seem to be fully formed when he started, no shame there I think. As for acknowledging that the client is the boss, I think that shows a degree of humility rather than a lack of care.
Niall
ps. your post fell victim to the font size problem and missed the rest of your post
-
Ryan:
I didn't know you were from Britain. I'm sure, from the UK perspective, that having some of the most expensive courses ever built in the UK described as "minimalist" is the source of some consternation.
Very few architects would have taken such an aggressive approach to Kingsbarns ... designers and developers in the UK before that never thought it was feasible to spend that sort of money on golf course construction. I am in awe of what they accomplished.
At the same time, I lament that so many want to move the whole world around to try and create a top 100 course every time out, because that's not what golf needs, and because most such projects are doomed to fail. There is a big middle ground between obsession and slapdash, and it's a shame more designers don't try to find it.
-
JC: as I said elsewhere, everybody has their own definition of minimalism, unfortunately. I've only tried to explain my own, which I hope you'll apply to my work, instead of Ben's or anybody else's. I also reserve the right to build an occasional project where a different approach is required. But I've only had to change my standards for a few courses out of 35, so I would submit that sites good for a minimalist approach are not as rare as some would have you believe.
-
"I like Pete Dye. Pete and I played a lot of amateur golf together. We were good friends and remain good friends. In fact, we spoke not long ago. The one thing I learned that never entered my mind prior to working with Pete is that golf is a far more pleasant game when played downhill."
Thanks, Mr. Nicklaus, for explaining to me why I'm the only non-fan of Pete Dye on here so succinctly. :)
Wonderful interview, thanks to all those involved.
-
I thought it was fairly clear that Jack Nicklaus is involved with designing golf courses for the fee and as a business and he doesn't seem to be overly interested in the topic.
That's made clear with this quote:
"It’s not my golf course; my job was and always is to do what the owner wants. "
Interesting take, although I didn't get that from the interview. He certainly looked at golf course architecture as a business almost from the very beginning. I have no issue with that (see Barzini quote below).
But later in the interview, when discussing Sebonack, Nicklaus says "The decision-making was something we had to agree upon, otherwise the owner, Michael Pascucci, would make the decision. We never wanted the owner to make the decision (says smiling)." So how to reconcile that quote with his earlier one about doing what the owner wants? Perhaps he means that the owner supplies a sort of macro approach to the project, the overarching brief on what is wanted, but the design itself belongs to the architects. That's the way I read it, anyway.
-
But later in the interview, when discussing Sebonack, Nicklaus says "The decision-making was something we had to agree upon, otherwise the owner, Michael Pascucci, would make the decision. We never wanted the owner to make the decision (says smiling)." So how to reconcile that quote with his earlier one about doing what the owner wants? Perhaps he means that the owner supplies a sort of macro approach to the project, the overarching brief on what is wanted, but the design itself belongs to the architects. That's the way I read it, anyway.
Jack did say that very thing about Mr. Pascucci to me, right in front of Michael, the first time we all got together ... kind of laying down a marker, I think. He and Michael have known each other for a long time and he probably knew how involved Michael would want to be in the project. The whole setup was ripe for triangulation, which is one reason co-designs are so difficult to pull off.
The topic of HOW involved you would like an involved client to be is a sensitive one. You do want to fulfill THEIR mission, but at the same time, they are hiring YOU to design the course and paying to put YOUR name on it.
The person who had the best perspective on this, for me, was Dick Youngscap, who developed Sand Hills [and Firethorn before that]. Dick is an architect himself, by profession, so he was all too familiar with having clients who kept changing their minds in mid-process, and otherwise meddling with the design. At Firethorn, he battled with Mr. Dye a bit, but he kept his input to reminding Pete to stay on budget, because he didn't have the unlimited resources of some of Pete's other clients. At Sand Hills, he certainly had strong opinions, but he did not want to interfere with Bill and Ben on details of the design.
My impression is that Mr. Youngscap believes most clients [including a lot of the ones you read about] get too involved in the process.
For my own part, I like it when the client comes out during construction to see what is going on, and to ask questions about why we are doing certain things. It's much better for him to hear the answer from me, than to get the question from a golfer two years later, and agree with the golfer because he never heard my side of the story. [I made the mistake of not communicating with the client very well at High Pointe, and that's one small reason it's now gone.] However, when a client does get involved, we always hold our breath hoping that they won't start suggesting where to put bunkers or move a green. The golf course is a big puzzle, and it's hard to put a puzzle together when somebody else is changing the shapes of the pieces!
-
One of Jack's most interesting comments came in his answer to the first question:
"Golf was always a vehicle to competition for me, and course design is no different. It has always been me against a piece of ground or my own creative abilities."
I've read Jack say that about golf before: that the competition is what really drove him and got him charged. Now his competitive career is over. Pretty sure he plays virtually no golf these days, and hasn't for years. It's not a pastime for him. Without the competition (and for him that means world-class competition), he simply isn't interested.
Saying course design is also competition is even more intriguing. Jack against the ground, so it yields to the vision he has for it? Whatever minimalism is, that doesn't seem like it to me. He doesn't mean competition against other golf course architects, does he? If so, he's not doing so well in that department.
It's always surprised me that Jack never routes courses. That seems like the guts of the entire design process. Since Jack leaves that to his associates, I get the sense it doesn't matter as much to him. He often says his big role is in establishing the strategy of the course.
So here's my sense. For Jack, golf is not really a game to be enjoyed. It's a battle to be won. You pit yourself against other golfers when you play; against the land when you design. His role as designer (I don't think he really is a designer, but more a manager), is to set the battlegrounds for the competition.
This may be one reason Pete Dye sought out his help in the early days. Dye often built courses to beat up the world's best. Who better than the world's very best to advise him on how to do that?
-
I have read a lot of design theory and various design critiques in other fields ( I am a building architect) and to expect any individual to be 100% intellectually consistent at all times when commenting on such buzz words as "minimalism" is hopelessly implausible. The GCA has to be given a lot latitude and way more than the benefit of the doubt in order to their job.
I would say the objective is to discover the sweet spot between fun, playability & challenge for each project. My observation is that is nearly impossible to do for a single course for the top 500 golfers in the world & the rest of us at the same time.
-
A huge problem in the cohesiveness of the interview has to be attributed to the way it was carried out. Am I right these were transcribed answers to conversations made over the course of time?
On the term minimalism, IMO it was used esoterically to describe the difference between "What those guys do" and what the big fee, big name, big project names, of the post Dow Jones breaking through 1000 for the first time era, manufactured. Which culminated in naturalness visionaries like Dick Y. @ Sand Hills and Mike K. in Oregon.
Sure, it's all opinion, But, It ends up boiling down to taste. I think Mike K. gets the nod for having the best taste because he appreciates the principles (and the warnings) that Max Behr poetically riddled in his prose.
-
He is seemingly moving onto more "natural" looking golf courses in recent years, but it seems like it's primarily window dressing as that is what the clients today want and its the only way he can win jobs over guys like Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, etc.
That's pretty harsh. I think Tom posted recently to the effect that he really isn't under consideration for the same projects that guys like Nicklaus are. People who talk to Nicklaus are primarily buying his name, because it will help market the course. Yes, they want a good course too, but the idea of 'good course' to someone hiring Nicklaus may be 'provides a world class challenge to world class players' which Doak and Hanse haven't been known for building (though Tom said he would like the opportunity to do that sometime, and I hope it happens as I'd be quite interested to see his take on a design that could challenge a guy like Jordan Spieth)
If the client wants a minimalist course because that's the hot new thing, and wants the Nicklaus name attached to it, Jack can deliver because he said he'll give the client what he wants. I agree with those who say that he was talking about the overall concept, like "minimalist", "walkable", "could host a major someday" not specific details like "I want a par 5 that's over 700 yards so no one will ever reach it, and I want a par 3 that tees off from that hill over yonder to an island green the shape of Texas built in the lake below".
-
A huge problem in the cohesiveness of the interview has to be attributed to the way it was carried out. Am I right these were transcribed answers to conversations made over the course of time?
Why is that a problem and I'm unsure what you are objecting to? Maybe it's not what you want to hear?
We were given the option to meet with Jack but given the number of questions and follow up questions felt this allowed it to be much more extensive.
-
Joel, I wasn't the one to point out issues with the article. I was only trying to understand and perhaps determine the cause.
-
Finally found an opportunity to sit down and read this. Thanks to everyone that had a hand in making this happen.
-
[post removed]
-
Doak was responsible for the routing and greens at Sebonack, but Jack takes credit for the strategy. What?!?those are the kinds of pedestrian tasks that can be delegated to any old associate.
Michael Pascucci always gives Jack credit for adding the strategy to the course. He did add a lot of bunkers to DEFINE the strategy, but I have always thought the basic strategy comes from the landform and works from the green backwards.
After the opening event, my wife asked me how many of the greens Jack designed vs. how many I designed. I went through them and put us each down for five. My associates and shapers came up with the rest of them, and Jack and I just edited those a bit.
-
Doak was responsible for the routing and greens at Sebonack, but Jack takes credit for the strategy. What?!?those are the kinds of pedestrian tasks that can be delegated to any old associate.
Michael Pascucci always gives Jack credit for adding the strategy to the course. He did add a lot of bunkers to DEFINE the strategy, but I have always thought the basic strategy comes from the landform and works from the green backwards.
After the opening event, my wife asked me how many of the greens Jack designed vs. how many I designed. I went through them and put us each down for five. My associates and shapers came up with the rest of them, and Jack and I just edited those a bit.
Tom,
Who takes credit for # 2 ? ;D