Scott...
the point of me posting that was to follow up on Adam's post discussing the progression of Jack Nicklaus as a designer.
He got started in the business, as you say, and he had the most success were he was involved the least. If the first three courses you were involved with were constantly in the Top 100 right from the start, why would change a thing or even think that what you were doing wasn't right?
So it appears to me that he thinks/thought that those quick and fast sessions where he gives his opinions are so valuable and insightful that they are the reasons his courses are/were so highly regarded. In fact, this seems to build on the previous comments in this thread that Jack doesn't believe routing is what makes a course, rather it is his ideas of where to put bunkers and the like.
My post also touches on why people love his Muirfield Village course so much and, therefore, opens up some thoughts from Golf.com on what might be Jack's legacy regarding architecture...after all that is the point of this thread...and here is that quote...
Critics lauded "The House That Jack Built," as much for its flawless conditioning as for its design hallmarks, but every bit as impressive was how Nicklaus seamlessly integrated spectator areas into the closing holes, using hillsides and amphitheater-style mounding to provide fans with unimpeded views of the action…
Also, this was offered as a potential thought on his legacy, "Jack builds gorgeous courses that are impossible to play, maintain or afford. "
But I also cite Jack's quote saying he listens to his critics and implies that he cares about progressing as a designer. This implies his legacy isn't yet written and I, for one, am interested to see the progression of his work after his time spent with Sebonack.