I saw a tv program on the Fine Living channel that featured Nicklaus commenting on course design (or at least his own) and he said "great courses have great shots in them. Most architects have not played top level golf, so don't know what makes great shots."

Obviously the comments were a bit self serving. My question is, how many architects from the golden age (or any age for that manner) never played top level golf?

I know Mack. didn't, and none of Nicklaus's designs hold a candle to his, so there goes that argument, but who else?

Tilly was a very talented player who was just a notch below the best.

Among his playing accomplishments:

•  Tilly was a member of the first American team to play a series of challenge matches against a team from the British Isles in 1903. J.L. Low, a Cambridge alumnus, captained the Oxford and Cambridge Golfing Society
•  Tilly tied H.P. Smith after 21 holes, with the match ending in a draw, for the 1905 Philadelphia Golf Championship.
•  He was awarded the Silver cross of the Golf association of Philadelphia in 1909 which was awarded to the winner of the Association’s annual Medal Play Championship. He was more proud of this award than any other he ever received.
•  In 1910, Tilly recorded his best finish as a player in our national championship. Despite the winning score of Aleck Smith that bettered him by some 18 strokes, his score of 316 allowed him to place 25th in the U.S. Open at the Philadelphia Cricket Club, his home course. He finished as the second low amateur.
•  Tilly recorded the first par, the first birdie and became the first player to hit a ball into the water at Pine Valley.

Nonsense from the great man, I'm afraid.  If you needed to have played top level golf to appreciate great shots then why would anyone bar the tour players bother to watch great golfers play?  I'm not much of a soccer player, never have been, but I know a great goal when I see one.

If he'd designed one (1) course on his own considered to be great by the golfing community, his comments might have some credibility.

Being a good player helps (good to me is less than 10 handicap), but it is not necessary....

As long as you can understand what the best players can do, what can influence their decisions etc...

caddieing for tour players a bit helps, do that on the canadian tour, where you can jump on some future stars bag by standing around the putting green on Wednesday...

If you can surround yourself with great players, Dr Mac did that... it's just as good and even better than being the great player

Gents:

No doubt Jack's comments are a bit self-serving but I to believe he has some merit in terms of the strategic elements which Jack tries to give his layouts.

To Jack's credit now -- his latest works are not solely geared to the high hit / soft landing fade which marked a number of his earliest efforts.

With that said -- one need only look at the names of the all-time best coaches in most sports and in nearly all cases these individuals were not necessarily the best players when they played.

Jim N:

In regards to Pebble Beach I believe you have the names of Jack Neville and if memory serves, Chandler Egan also played a role in its design. Both were solid golfers -- albeit not in Jack's league buit far from being the garden variety average golfers.

After calling the fifth and disqualifying foul on my then basketball coach in a high school teachers vs. alumni game, the guy yells at me something to the effect "you can't play, you can't ref".  This has stuck in my mind all these years and got me to thinking about the subject matter when it was brought up here three or four years ago (and several times since).

I tend to agree with Tony Ristola's comments.  I don't think playing at the highest levels is necessarily a requirement to build great courses.  Most design today is collaborative in nature, and I suspect that input from very good players somehow gets incorporated.  Holding everything else equal, being able to execute the shots has to be a great advantage to the designer.

Chris Kane,

I don't know what golf community you belong to or your definition of "great", but I can probably come up with a dozen or so.  Are you a professional gca critic?

Adam,

Re: PBGL #8.  Neville and Egan could have chosen different locations and green complexes.  The coastline was there, but I bet it was their knowledge of golf and experience in shotmaking that led to what might be one of the best mid-length par 4s in the world.  Yes, the Pacific adds great allure, but it could be built in the hill country of Austin, TX and it would still be a great, demanding hole.

 

One has a hard time reconciling this thought with his previous comment that he doesn't seek out the work of his contemporaries.

Gary Player is a golfer Jack Nicklaus respects.  How are his courses?  Arnold Palmer?

Tom Doak?  David McLay Kidd?  Tom Fazio?

I'll take the hackers, thank you.

Jack's comments are very silly. Two words are enough to show how silly:

Alistair MacKenzie.

All this business about almost all the good courses are designed by good players is nonsense. Those of us who are not good players typically choose a profession based on what we are best at. Also, I am sure no one goes around seeking out poor players and asking them whether they would be interested in joining in on the design of a course.

Of course almost all the good courses are designed by good players. They are primarily the ones that seek a profession in the sport. They are primarily the ones that are sought out for expertise.

Matthew,

Nicklaus has one course in Golf Magainze's top 25 worldwide, and two in the top 50.  BTW, your definition of great is very narrow.  There are probably in excess of 30,000 courses worlwide.  1% is an arbitrary number, probably way too low in most any other context of what constitutes greatness, but it fits my definition.  I have no desire to go tit for tat, but I think that most people who don't have an ax to grind on the classic vs. modern argument would agree that Jack's work is disproportionately represented in this broader category of
"great".

BTW, borrowing from my friend Matt Ward, how many Nicklaus courses have you and Chris played?  I've played a fairly good sample and have yet to find a dud.  But, oops, I forgot.  To some here, experience really doesn't matter when it comes to evaluating gca.  Hopefully, you are not of that persuasion.  

Jack is not aging gracefully.  His ego seems to get in the way.  I was at a Christmas party with him many years ago, at Loxahatchee, and he does not really respect the work of many modern architects.  The interesting thing is he really believes what he says.

Jack's comments would be far more palatable if they were modified to read, "To build a great golf course, the architect must be able to put himself in the shoes of a great player."  

By the same token, to build a golf course that is an enjoyable test for the masses, the architect must be able to put himself in the shoes of an average player.  The greatest courses, after all, are those that can be enjoyed by all levels of players.  This is where I think a lot of Nicklaus courses fail.  They are criticized not because they don't provide an excellent and enjoyable test for the top flight player, but because they demand a particular shot type that most players don't have.  A bit more room for improvisation might make many of Jack's courses even better.

As for the suggestion that Jack might not have built a "dud," I think it's probably very difficult to build a pure dud with a huge construction budget and a portfolio of template holes.

Also, the "Nicklaus" course at Pine Hills is built by Jackie, not Jack.