I have always thought that the visual was really important to me as a golfer. There are many times that I hit shots that are based upon what I see or think is there based on how it looks to my eye. Some courses fool me and some don't. Just recently, we were playing a nassau at Crooked Stick and we came to the seventh hole (blind tee-shot) and none of us had played there before. My opponents and my partner all went about 10-15 yards right of what I thought was the line, but I trusted what I thought the hole wanted and that I thought the fairway had to slope right. I took my shot left and ended up in the middle of the fairway. The guys I was playing with were all dead and they made 5,6,6 I think. I thought the second to #15 at Winged Foot was very deceiving in the Open on Sunday. The pin looked there was no way to get it close, but in fact there was a bowl back there and you could. The appearance of the severity of the greens from the fairway also causes me to not make a committed swing sometimes, you just never quite trust it.

Tom,

I seem to recall that you once said you avoid designing ugly holes...

Jessey,

I'm saying that I think Doak once implied that he may design a less interesting hole over a more visually pleasing route.

And I'm saying that it would only necessarily be more visually pleasing to him. The rest of us may or may not think it so. From reading on here, he has enough belief in what he's doing that he's not building for a universal concensus.

Then tell me why the 18th at Sebonack is a par 5...

By the way, I think "what you get" is more important that "what you see". Maybe that's why I like links golf so much.

Now I get it...C&C and Doak and all the other favs around here build invisible features only seen by those who get it...The truth is that you can see a blind hole simply by opening your eyes...

Jordan...Is it Nicklaus or Fazio...I hope you didn't change the name for the sake of your upcoming host.

John:

I was surprised to what extent Mr. Nicklaus wanted to change things around at Sebonack purely for visual reasons and not for how the hole would play.  He was almost as concerned with the visuals as I am, but we sometimes had entirely different considerations as to what we wanted to see and why it was important.  (Those were actually the hardest things for us to resolve together, not the playability issues.)

I've never said I would build a "less interesting" hole because of the visuals, but there are always many ways to design a hole over the same ground, and visual elements are always a part of the equation.  

The past two days at Archerfield we've been working on a short par five (the 14th hole) and I opted for the coolest green site even though it makes visibility a problem.  So, now we are working on the visibility, raising the landing area a bit and cutting the brow of a hill between landing area and green until we get something that's visually interesting.  As the native ground stood, it would have been blind off the end of a plateau and maybe just seeing the top of the flag on the green below; I'm just trying to make sure you can see some green surface from 150-200 yards in and the flag from 200-250, so you have more than treelines to orient your approach shot.  But you still can't see much BETWEEN the brow and the green.

Young Jordan,

I assume that when you say "people are not huge Nicklaus fans", that you are simply referring to the only world you know, the GCA world of golf architecture.
Someday you will realized that outside of the 1500 members on GCA, that there is an entire world of golfers that are huge fans of Nicklaus designs.  

Maybe when you play your first Fazio course soon, you will realize there is an entirely different world out there that isn't brainwashed.

Ryan:

If the clubhouse site is chosen in advance, your options of what golf holes to build are severely curtailed.  Not only do you have to start/end two or four holes at the clubhouse, but most clients don't want any of those holes to be a par three, so even the holes before and after the starting and finishing holes are directly affected by clubhouse position.  [i.e. if you've got a great green site 200 yards from the clubhouse, or 700 yards from the clubhouse, you may not be able to use it at all.]

Even if the client has a choice of two locations in mind, you've got your options back.  Usually the access / entrance to the site or the off-site views will dictate that the clubhouse should go on one side of the property, but the course is going to work out better if the golf course architect gets his say on the exact spot.

Peter:

The 14th is the hole which comes back down the hill.  The 12th is the long par-4 which plays along the edge and has the best views, but you can see the water off to the right from 14 as well.

Someday you will realized that outside of the 1500 members on GCA, that there is an entire world of golfers that are huge fans of Nicklaus designs.  

Maybe when you play your first Fazio course soon, you will realize there is an entirely different world out there that isn't brainwashed.

I too take issue with the idea that people here are "brainwashed" to dislike Nicklaus or Fazio or Rees Jones or whoever.  There may be people who pre-judge their work without seeing it and that is unfortunate.  But, there are a lot of people on this site that have specific reasons (and sometimes very persuasive ones) for criticizing certain courses from these architects.  To say that GCAers are biased or out of step with the mainstream doesn't really advance the discussion very far.