Jack's architectural style & ANGC

[Scott Cannon]

I am truly asking what people think.
It seems there is a bit of Jack bashing here, and I would normally jump right in. I do know he phones it in, and some of his courses look curiously similar.
I was discussing Jacks designs with another member in an IM. I told him I was one of the golf pros at a new Nicklaus course in Austin. I spent the majority of my time in the shop defending the course. I made it my mission over the next 2 years putting some serious effort into really understanding his design.
What I found was a pretty darn good golf course. Plenty of room off the tee (ala ANGC), but you cant just bomb it. He does put bunkering where a long hitter might let it go. Although there is plenty of room off the tee, you really need to position your tee ball so you can find the pins on what are some very difficult greens (ala ANGC). If you miss the greens, there are multiple ways of getting it up and down. Bump and run, flop shots, low skidders and some very difficult bunker shots (ala ANGC). The outgoing 9 was fairly hard, while the incoming 9 allows a bit more risk/reward, and better scoring (ala ANGC). It has some reachable par 5's, but you better pure the second because there is trouble everywhere (ala 13 & 15 at ANGC), and a couple of VERY difficult 8 iron par 3's (ala). I found a golf course thats not 3 wood, wedge, miss the green, chip up and make par. It's a wonderful match-play course (we should all take a page from the Euros and ask who won the match, not what did you shoot...anyway) and each hole offers the membership a chance to dissect the hole to plan out how to play the hole in order to give them the best chance to score.
It seem that ANGC's design is considered solid. With that in mind, don't Jacks courses have a lot of the same design principles?

[Tom_Doak]

Scott:

You are right there are many similarities between the makeup of Jack's designs and that of Augusta.  But to me the feel is completely different -- there is not the same use of contour (of the land in the fairways or on the greens) to achieve the desired effect, it's all about the size and outline of the targets, which Augusta (with one or two exceptions) is not.

P.S.  He never called me at Sebonack to phone in anything.  He didn't visit for as long as I did, but I got the impression that he was concentrating 100% on that course when he was there.

[Scott Cannon]

Scott:

there is not the same use of contour (of the land in the fairways or on the greens) to achieve the desired effect, it's all about the size and outline of the targets, which Augusta (with one or two exceptions) is not.

I need some help understanding this comment. Do you mean if the land trends left to right, his fairways dont?

Thanks
Outlining Targets?

[Dave Bourgeois]

 Scott,

I just listened to a nice Jack Nicklaus interview on Pure Golf (Peter Kessler's show on XM).  They spoke a bit about his GCA and Jack's design philosophy over time.  

Jack spoke at length about "Creating Golf Shots".  This struck me because it would seem his first thought was not about the land he was given, but the strategic and skill aspects of golf.  I can now see why he does not design many holes with blind shots or allow for a great amount of randomness (luck/bounces) with his tough being about specific shots.

I haven't played any of Jacks solo designs, but would be interested to see if that is the thought I get when playing.  

[Tom_Doak]

I used "outline of targets" to describe the shape of the green in plan view, not to be confused with 3-D "shaping".

As for the first part of your question, my perception is that Jack tends to think about the golf course as a series of "landing areas" which ought to be relatively flat, instead of as an undulating surface.  He doesn't like it when the landing area is crowned so that the ball could bounce either way.

Note that he never said that directly to me, just my perception of what he was thinking based on his reaction to different holes at Sebonack.

[Dan Herrmann]

Dave,
The first really good course I played was Jack's Glen Abbey in metro Toronto.   I was 19 at the time, and was overwhelmed by the experience, having only really played Buffalo-area munis.

I was up there a couple of years ago, and was looking at the course with a different point of view.  IMHO, Jack's comments on Pure Golf are certainly in sync with Glenn Abbey.  It's a very fine golf course that demands shot making.  The gimmicky hole - 17 and its U shaped green has been redone.  Other than that, Glen Abbey was a "in front of you" course that rewards good shotmaking without gimmicks.

I'd also suggest folks with XM give Pure Golf a listen.  It's quite a good show (XM-146 at 8 and 9 ET).

[Anthony Butler]

I used "outline of targets" to describe the shape of the green in plan view, not to be confused with 3-D "shaping".

As for the first part of your question, my perception is that Jack tends to think about the golf course as a series of "landing areas" which ought to be relatively flat, instead of as an undulating surface.  He doesn't like it when the landing area is crowned so that the ball could bounce either way.

Note that he never said that directly to me, just my perception of what he was thinking based on his reaction to different holes at Sebonack.

Based on the Nicklaus courses I have played, I couldn't disagree with you, Tom. I'm not sure exactly what Jack's definition of 'flat" is. I'm sure it wouldn't extent to the third at Barnbougle, but his design philosophy still seems hard to square with his affection for the British Open.

Then again, as an architect, he hasn't done a lot of courses in the British Isles, and hardly any you would call links golf. The PGA Cententary Course seems to contain very little of the capricious nature of the other Gleaneagles facilities. Odd, since Nicklaus comes across as more quirky in person than you would think. (Hope you didn't wear a tie to any of your meetings.)