[Kyle Henderson]

From Geoff Shackelford's website: A glimpse inside the designing minds of Nicklaus and Palmer.


http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2008/5/9/nicklaus-admits-he-used-to-design-for-his-own-game-has-no-re.html

[Tom_Doak]

He still designs for himself, or at least, his assumptions about what shots should be penalized or rewarded are based on his own abilties.  But, that is true for me as well, and it's probably true for most architects.

[Jed Peters]

Uh totally agree.

If you've ever played a mid-80s nicklaus course (that he had a personal hand in designing) you HAVE to hit the high, 200 yard cut shot.

Almost every one of his shots into greens require that.

[Will MacEwen]

Uh totally agree.

If you've ever played a mid-80s nicklaus course (that he had a personal hand in designing) you HAVE to hit the high, 200 yard cut shot.

Almost every one of his shots into greens require that.

For lefties it is the high draw, which is no picnic. 

[Greg Tallman]

He still designs for himself, or at least, his assumptions about what shots should be penalized or rewarded are based on his own abilties.  But, that is true for me as well, and it's probably true for most architects.

I think that a bit politically correct of an answer on your part as in my view your style (with regard to playability) is... "to allow as great a variety of shots to be played as possible as often as possible"

As a 10 or so handicap does this make the game more pleasuarable for you... perhaps but is this your style because you wnat to reward the clanky 5-iron that on ocassion ends up 10 feet from the hole??? 

Do you promote the ground game (a generalization aimed at the major difference) because of YOUR game or as a combined effect of wanting average players to have achance and better player to have to commit to one of the many option presented?

[Tom_Doak]

Greg:

I allow the ground game for the latter reason you mentioned.

All I really intended by my comment was that every architect comes with built-in biases.  Mr. Nicklaus is conscious of his preference to fade the ball, and tries to balance it out in his designs, though there was only one hole at Sebonack where he really INSISTED on something and that was a par-3 which you have to play with a fade.

I was thinking more of the fact that he sets fairway bunkers at certain distances, and those distances are based on his idea of what are "good" carry distances ... 285 yards most of the time, or sometimes 265.  He doesn't put them at 225 from the back tees because he thinks those are pointless, and he doesn't put them at 310 yards because HE can't carry those, even though he knows Tiger can.  My choices are more random in that regard, because I recognize that even players at the same level have different carry distances, and because I know my courses should have a few optional carries beyond my own abilities.

[Jimmy Muratt]

...then is it safe to say that when comparing two random players/architects below, most on GCA would prefer player A's design work?

Player A:
- likes to work the ball and play golf shots (draws, fades, punches)
- creative short game, sees and plays many different kinds of shots
- enjoys risk/reward opportunities

Player B:
- fairways & greens type of player
- not flashy, but very efficient

Just like their respective games, it would seem that Player A's courses would be far more exciting and interesting.  Player B may consistently post good scores, but not too many people want to watch them play....nor I assume play their courses.

It seems like it would be difficult for a player that doesn't have an imaginative short game to design green surrounds that presented numerous options.  Players with deft short games such as Tiger or Mickelson seem best suited to design interesting chipping areas, collection areas, bunkering, etc.  

Thoughts?

[Greg Tallman]

Greg:

I allow the ground game for the latter reason you mentioned.

All I really intended by my comment was that every architect comes with built-in biases.  Mr. Nicklaus is conscious of his preference to fade the ball, and tries to balance it out in his designs, though there was only one hole at Sebonack where he really INSISTED on something and that was a par-3 which you have to play with a fade.

I was thinking more of the fact that he sets fairway bunkers at certain distances, and those distances are based on his idea of what are "good" carry distances ... 285 yards most of the time, or sometimes 265.  He doesn't put them at 225 from the back tees because he thinks those are pointless, and he doesn't put them at 310 yards because HE can't carry those, even though he knows Tiger can.  My choices are more random in that regard, because I recognize that even players at the same level have different carry distances, and because I know my courses should have a few optional carries beyond my own abilities.

Fair enough... and I was siding with you on the issue while suggesting that by "your game" you were as much referring as much to the average player as the golfing abilitites of Tom Doak even if your game would qualify as above average.

[Kyle Henderson]

It seems like it would be difficult for a player that doesn't have an imaginative short game to design green surrounds that presented numerous options.  Players with deft short games such as Tiger or Mickelson seem best suited to design interesting chipping areas, collection areas, bunkering, etc.  

Thoughts?

If this can be proven, all architects should list attendence at a Pelz short-game clinic on their resume.

Seriously though, I really hope Tiger's playing genius on the greens translates to the design of green surrounds on the courses which bear his name in the coming years.

[Tom_Doak]

Charlie:  I am all about the mental challenge.

Jimmy M:  I think your characterization of different players and what they would design rings true.  Jack's courses are not particularly interesting for the short game because he thinks about hitting greens, not missing them.  Tom Weiskopf builds the flattest greens of anyone I know; Gary Player must've been a poor putter because he prefers flat greens too, although you would expect him to build nastier bunkers than he has on the courses I've seen.

Ben Crenshaw has a great short game and that certainly shines through in the work of his company.  Tom Watson had a great short game, too, so I would have expected more cool courses out of him.  And Seve would probably design the coolest green complexes of all -- but he doesn't, because he isn't seriously enough interested in architecture to put in the time on it.

[McCloskey]

How is it that so many don't believe Nicklaus does the design work at all, and now I read where he designs only for his own game.    Which is it, or do the guys working for Nicklaus only play high fades also?
Isn't it about time that that cliche' is put to rest.   Nicklaus has actually played a draw for the last 20 years

[Paul Saathoff]

This isn't any profound new discovery.  Jack has admitted himself that this was a fault in his earlier designs. 

[PThomas]

and he doesn't put them at 310 yards because HE can't carry those, even though he knows Tiger can. 

i don't understand..does this mean Jack is still designing these bunkers around his game today, even though, I assume, most/all guys on tour hit it farther than he does...

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:  Yes.  Jack put several bunkers out at 310 or 320 at Sebonack, but they were there only to trap the long hitter who went too far to the wrong side of the fairway.  All of the hazards someone would want to carry to obtain a better angle were 265-285 yards from the back tee, and I think that's because Jack can still relate to that distance, even if he can't always make that carry today.

[Brad Klein]

Plus, most of the guys who work for him play the same way.

[Matthew Hunt]

Paul:  Yes.  Jack put several bunkers out at 310 or 320 at Sebonack, but they were there only to trap the long hitter who went too far to the wrong side of the fairway.  All of the hazards someone would want to carry to obtain a better angle were 265-285 yards from the back tee, and I think that's because Jack can still relate to that distance, even if he can't always make that carry today.

 

Tom, is it the wrong side of the fairway because of the bunkers or are the to expand the differentiation beetween strategies.

[Tom_Doak]

Matthew:  I don't think those bunkers at 320 really expanded the strategies.  All they did was to make the guy who didn't want to take on the carry at 285, play short of the bunker on the opposite side (or go into it).  But usually the opposite side of the fairway (the one which you had to carry the 285 bunker to get to) was the best angle to the green, and the bunker at 320 was across the fairway from that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()