Nicklaus on Doak

« **Reply #200 on:** October 15, 2007, 11:09:23 AM »

And as for "mental masturbation" -- with a tip of the hat to Woody Allen:

Don't knock mental masturbation. It's thinking with someone I love.

« **Reply #201 on:** October 15, 2007, 11:17:32 AM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on October 14, 2007, 09:33:00 AM

Jeff: I don't think you understand Jack's idea of good "strategy" at all. (But then, how could you?)

Pretty much all of Jack's suggestions at Sebonack were to make the golf course harder by adding bunkers to force the player to make more decisions. I'll give just one example -- the uphill par-5 ninth.

We started with a wide landing area with a small knobby hill left-center, about 260 from the back tee, and a bunker to the right of that crowding the line if you played to the right of the knob for a flatter lie. My thought was if a guy didn't make the carry, he's standing on the side of the knob and I'm going to dare him to try and hit a long club off that lie up the hill for his second, where he could be a hero, OR compound his mistake and get in real trouble.

That was not black and white enough for Jack. He insisted on putting a big bunker into the face of the knob, left-center of the fairway, and then moving the bunker on the right a bit because it was too close to his new bunker. If you clear his new bunker, that's position A; if you can't, you'd better play right and short of it. He wanted to move the knob 20 yards further up into the hill so the bunker would be a 285 carry, but eventually we just put a tee 20 yards further back instead.

The green for the same hole is wide and shallow and slopes from left to right. Urbina shaped this one himself, based on three minutes of advance direction from me -- Jim Lipe was shocked that was all I gave him, just general directions, no drawing -- and Jack liked it from day one, so it never changed. We put a deep bunker front right, and sand into the hill behind, but I had left the front left very open, because for most people it's a blind approach (second shot for long hitters or third shot for anybody above a 10 handicap) and I was going to let them aim as far left as they wanted and play a fade to ride the wind into the green.

Jack put a small bunker at the left front, to make players choose whether to hit over the bunker, through the entrance (even though many players can't see the entrance), or lay up. I was quite surprised at this because the bunker is blind for many players, but [my interpretation is] Jack just didn't want to leave the approach to a par five wide open on one side so that anybody who could get there with a 3-wood could get on in two ... he wanted them to have to challenge a hazard. I think he's really thinking if they can't fly it onto the green, they have to take their chances with the bunker left front, he's not really thinking anybody would thread a runner through the entrance.

My point in all this is that the give-and-take was NOT AT ALL as you speculated, regarding Jack not liking me wanting to penalize a marginal shot. Jack doesn't want people to get away with a marginal shot, and it seemed to bother him that I was sometimes going to allow it. I took from this that Tour pros don't mind making the occasional bogey; what they want to stop at all costs is the bogey golfer making par on a marginal shot to beat them!

And that's my last post on this thread. Y'all knock yourselves out; but since none of you were on site with us, you are just making things up out of thin air to justify your own views.

I'm saving this post, one of the most illuminating ever on this site.

« **Reply #202 on:** October 15, 2007, 11:37:50 AM »

I agree, George. When theory is illustrated by in-the-ground examples, this site is terrific.

« **Reply #203 on:** October 15, 2007, 11:48:23 AM »

I guess the question has to be asked...and I have not seen it asked on this thread, although it may well have been...if a higher understanding of "what a golf shot should be" is beneficial in the architecture world, and a 10 handicapper (sorry Tom, if you're lower) can't grasp it, how is anyone that actually plays it going to appreciate his course?

Just a thought...

« **Reply #204 on:** October 15, 2007, 12:17:55 PM »

I, too think TD's response was one of the best ever. I prefer talking or hearing about specifics, rather than bashing, or even the generalized "pro philosophy" I was trying to convey. Naturally, I couldn't! And, I can take a good natured swipe from Tom.

Why, after all I have read/heard/discussed with the two men in question, does it not surprise me that TD proposed using a natural mound/fw contours as the carry hazard, and JN preferred the "more black and white" or definition of fw bunkers? Frankly, in some of my earlier, poorly articuated posts on the differences in pros thinking, somewhere in there, I was thinking that TD and a few others use far more ground contour than traditional gca's. Also, I have always believed (maybe from reading it here) that JN doesn't think of golf courses and ground contours in true 3D fashion.

That said, the Dismal River website shows me that he is getting there. Course looks very rolling and wonderful. Can't wait to play it. I am not dissing Jack - he learned from Pete Dye, and for as good as Harbor Town and other early courses are, I always felt he started out in the 2D design mode as well. For that matter, I think most of us start out thinking in 2D rather than 3D, esp. using plan views.

Perhaps its another thread, but I would also love a discussion on the "proper" distance to place carry hazards from the tee......

« **Reply #205 on:** October 15, 2007, 12:21:52 PM »

Quote from: JES II on October 15, 2007, 11:48:23 AM

I guess the question has to be asked...and I have not seen it asked on this thread, although it may well have been...if a higher understanding of "what a golf shot should be" is beneficial in the architecture world, and a 10 handicapper (sorry Tom, if you're lower) can't grasp it, how is anyone that actually plays it going to appreciate his course?

Just a thought...

George and Jim, this also begs the question. Does JN design for himself first because if this philosophy?

« **Reply #206 on:** October 15, 2007, 12:22:52 PM »

Also an excellent post, Jeff, with enough fodder for another thread.

« **Reply #207 on:** October 15, 2007, 04:47:12 PM »

Great to read up on TD's comments. Furthermore, this is already an extraordinary design because it’s doubtful the two will collaborate again, but if they did it would be great to see. I have heard rumors that Sebonack was all Doak, and have since learned that it is not true. It really is getting the best of both of these two greats! From what Nicklaus said - he likes the Doak look and let him lead the way in that regard, where JN provided a lot of strategic design from the players perspective. Something that TD can very much do himself. But having JN available to collaborate can only add to overall appeal of this special piece of property. Where Nicklaus and Doak seemed to clash at times, both are professionals and were able design a special course, which is too new to be compared to others. Of the 300 + courses that JN and company designed, some are fantastic, while the majority are good (not great). Whereas I believe Crenshaw/Coore are first with Doak on my list of top architects that are active today.. Between TD and JN, Doak will go down as the better of the two when both are long gone.

« **Reply #208 on:** October 15, 2007, 05:28:40 PM »

Quote from: Philip Young on October 13, 2007, 10:26:10 PM

Jeff,

I'm sorry, but the ability to hit superior shots consistently has nothing whatsoever to do with a person's ability to design superior golf courses or to understand what an architect had in mind when he did.

Otherwise, how can you account for Mr. Macdonald's election into the World Golf Hall of Fame this year? By all accounts he was an even poorer player than me!

Even though he won one of the first U.S. Amateurs?

« **Reply #209 on:** October 15, 2007, 05:52:29 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on October 13, 2007, 11:34:48 AM

Anthony:

There are a lot of architects on the GOLF Magazine panel. Last time I counted there were 15 of us, and Nicklaus was one of them, although maybe going back to being on the GOLF DIGEST staff precludes that now. (But you neglected to mention that might have something to do with his successes on that list.)

Just curious about why Jack Nicklaus is on the GOLF Magazine rater panel if he never looks at anybody else's courses and can't vote for his own!

« **Reply #210 on:** October 15, 2007, 05:56:55 PM »

Bill,

They need enough voters who've seen Pine Valley, Shinnecock, and Cypress Point to keep them in the Top 10.

« **Reply #211 on:** October 15, 2007, 07:15:01 PM »

Tom Doak said:

"My point in all this is that the give-and-take was NOT AT ALL as you speculated, regarding Jack not liking me wanting to penalize a marginal shot. Jack doesn't want people to get away with a marginal shot, and it seemed to bother him that I was sometimes going to allow it. I took from this that Tour pros don't mind making the occasional bogey; what they want to stop at all costs is the bogey golfer making par on a marginal shot to beat them!

And that's my last post on this thread. Y'all knock yourselves out; but since none of you were on site with us, you are just making things up out of thin air to justify your own views."

TomD:

You began the above quote with 'to understand my point...'

Do you think any of us had to have been "on site" to understand the remainder of your remark?

I too think that post in which your remarks above were contained in was one of the best on this site. You are telling us what you think Nicklaus's rationale was for making various architectural decisions on a golf hole.

« **Reply #212 on:** October 15, 2007, 08:06:37 PM »

Tom Paul:

I will admit to a bit of frustration by this point.

I've said from the beginning that I wouldn't dissect the design of Sebonack into a who-did-what, because even my own first-person version would probably be disputed by the other parties to the job, and because I don't think that was the point of the whole production. The point was simply to get the best golf course possible, not to compete with each other on our contribution to the finished product.

After a year and a half, though, no one seems to want to judge the golf course on its own merits ... everyone seems to want to try to break it down. I don't think the course will ever get its due because people are too consumed by trying to take it apart.

My previous post may be enlightening to many here, but I only posted it because I was so frustrated with Jeff Brauer and others speculating wrongly about what my input was, and/or what Jack's input was.

I don't intend to do that for the other 17 holes (or for the 19th, which Jack never looked at). I didn't mean to imply that the board wouldn't understand it if I explained them ... I was simply asking you all not to continue speculating about conversations you didn't hear, because I'm not going to do a hole-by-hole.

« **Reply #213 on:** October 15, 2007, 08:33:21 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on October 14, 2007, 09:33:00 AM

And that's my last post on this thread.

Seriously, this is why I love this website!

« **Reply #214 on:** October 15, 2007, 08:45:28 PM »

Tom Doak,

I'd disagree with you.

There are a great number of individuals who think that Sebonack is a very good golf course, myself amongst them.

While I believe it may be too difficult for everyday member play from the back tees, it remains a very good golf course.

There's also a great number of people who don't care who did what. Not just with respect to Sebonack, but, about a great number of courses. Some golfers are content to enjoy the golf course for what it is, and not how it came into existance.

When you look at some courses, like Gulph Mills, with a pretty strong pedigree/s I don't know that most, many or a number of golfers really care about the underlying authorship of each feature or each hole. Most are consumed by the challenge of the day, despite the fact that the challenge is comprised of 18 seperate challenges. I don't think golfers break down that challenge further, into feature specifics.

However, I will admit to a curiosity with respect to the design elements at Sebonack. I think that's only natural for participants on a site like this. But, this site doesn't represent the average or normal golfer.

So, on one hand you have those who only care about their game interfacing with the golf course and the wind, oblivious to whether you, Nicklaus and others crafted this or that feature.

As an intellectual exercise, it's a different story.
There, I feel comfortable in saying that "inquiring minds want to know"

So, as long as you and Jack remain high profile designers, you're always going to have that intellectual curiosity from afar, whereas, golfers attempting to meet the challenge ON the golf course, are too consumed by the endeavor to give it a second thought.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

« **Reply #215 on:** October 15, 2007, 08:54:06 PM »

Tom Doak said:

"My point in all this is that the give-and-take was NOT AT ALL as you speculated, regarding Jack not liking me wanting to penalize a marginal shot. Jack doesn't want people to get away with a marginal shot, and it seemed to bother him that I was sometimes going to allow it.

I'm a member of an early 90's Nicklaus course (which I love) and this is EXACTLY what we talk about all the time. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a better under 10 word description of the apparent design philosophy.

« **Reply #216 on:** October 15, 2007, 08:58:25 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on October 15, 2007, 08:06:37 PM

...everyone seems to want to try to break it down. I don't think the course will ever get its due because people are too consumed by trying to take it apart.

Tom,

Did you ever seriously think this was going to happen?

You and Nicklaus would appear to have such dissimiliar views, it is only natural human curiosity to wonder who is responsible for what.

It happens here on the Gunnamatta course, and Barnbougle too, with some people wondering what's yours, and what's Mike Clayton's, and I would have thought you both have similiar ideas. It doesn't diminish the experience, it's just intriguing.

It's no different to watching a movie made from a book and speculating about why it isn't as good, or is better.

« **Reply #217 on:** October 16, 2007, 12:39:24 AM »

"Tom Paul:
I will admit to a bit of frustration by this point."

TomD:

I don't blame you at all for feeling frustrated, and, again, as some others mentioned that was an excellent post, hopefully very edifying for most on here.

« **Reply #218 on:** October 16, 2007, 01:10:31 AM »

Tom,

I have made 12 posts and typed 5600 words on this thread (prior to this one). Most were defending Jack Nicklaus’ words. Others tried to describe some of his general design philosophy (with me indicating where I got those ideas) Just a few did anything close to speculating on what your relationship or business model is/was, and I am sorry if I made you frustrated. It was certainly not my intent to seriously question your business model as much as it was me tweaking the golf course architecture faithful that think that golf course architects spend every day on site. And, I admitted it in other posts.

I am not sorry for defending JN from other posts, or for trying to articulate what I have learned about pros thoughts on design, even if in a thread highlighting your possible differences with one of those.

I am not sure how offensive my opinions on YOUR design philosophy were. When I said “Tom D is a "tough golf" advocate by his own admission, “ I believe you wrote that here. We have discussed that you think you do an appropriate job of backing off for the average player, and perhaps I should have mentioned that as well.

My "marginal shots" post was not well articulated, but was in response to my take on posts on JN’s comments. I implied that I think you would be more amenable to designing deep hazards than most pros, and using more ground contours. Again, I could be wrong, but from your writings and work, and JN’s writings and work I don’t think this comment was too far off base.

I do agree with your real world design example that most pros don’t think an indifferent shot should get similar treatment to a “good one” with distance/direction control.

From your last post, I sense some general frustration at the level of attention the project gets for its collaboration aspect. But, I really didn’t mention it or ask to hear details, but was glad you offered a glimpse at the design process, as were others who are fans of your work and gca in general.

I can see how you could get frustrated, and even take my remarks in some cases as “shots” at you. Again, I apologize. Frustrations aside, I would count your blessings that people want to dissect your courses as much as they do.

« **Reply #219 on:** October 16, 2007, 01:15:23 AM »

Tom and Tom

There is a beautiful Tom Waits song called 'Downtown Train' which was recorded for his 'Rain Dogs' album in the mid '80's. It has subsequently been recorded, not surprisingly, by Rod Stewart and others. The original recording features two electric guitar tracks, one played by G. E. Smith of Saturday Night Live band (he was their leader for many years), Hall and Oats, and Bob Dylan fame, the other was my friend Robert Quine - who played with Richard Hell, Lou Reed and many many 'cool' New York artists. G. E. Smith was the Fazio, or Nicklaus in this cocktail, Quine was the Doak or Hanse figure. The solo on the recording is sublime - Quine told me that on many occasions fans would compliment him on HIS solo. Of course it must have been him - that hack Smith could never have played anything as soulful. Well, actually G. E. did. I hope none of you enjoy it less knowing this. Quine was adamantly proud to have played second fiddle (sorry) on that occasion.

« **Reply #220 on:** October 16, 2007, 06:03:40 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on October 14, 2007, 09:33:00 AM

My point in all this is that the give-and-take was NOT AT ALL as you speculated, regarding Jack not liking me wanting to penalize a marginal shot. Jack doesn't want people to get away with a marginal shot, and it seemed to bother him that I was sometimes going to allow it. I took from this that Tour pros don't mind making the occasional bogey; what they want to stop at all costs is the bogey golfer making par on a marginal shot to beat them!

And that's my last post on this thread. Y'all knock yourselves out; but since none of you were on site with us, you are just making things up out of thin air to justify your own views.

Tom: Since it was apparently my fault for starting all of this, I must say I find your commentary on the strategy of a single hole to be quite fascinating and aptly explains the thoughts of both architects. I don't know why Jack said the things he did in my interview -- and I don't know why he insists he hasn't gone to see other's work, when he's seen Friar's Head, for instance.

Perhaps it is arrogance, perhaps insecurity. Maybe he's not sure that his place in history, as a player or designer, is as secure as he thinks it is, though he said to me he is comfortable with both.

Nonetheless, I think his position in respect to strategy is not defensible, whether it is regards to Doak or others. Interestingly, given his comments on Sand Hills in my interview, I'm not entirely sure Nicklaus pays much attention to who does what within Coore/Crenshaw.

« **Reply #221 on:** October 16, 2007, 06:38:50 PM »

Quote from: Tony Ristola on October 13, 2007, 04:47:31 PM

Jack knows a lot about design, but I don't think he has any idea how much work it takes to build a truly great golf course.

Could this be one reason Paragon lost 25 million and folded?

Perhaps true but not among the reasons for Paragon's failure.

« **Reply #222 on:** October 16, 2007, 06:46:03 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on October 14, 2007, 09:33:00 AM

And that's my last post on this thread. Y'all knock yourselves out; but since none of you were on site with us, you are just making things up out of thin air to justify your own views.

Good point and from the little I do know I can only say I wish had had the opportunity to observe the process.

For an outsider I would guess it would have been

1. Fun
2. Educational
3. Awkward

I believe the collaboration came not too long after Jack was father of the year or family of the year in golf...

Jack is not the only guilty party when it comes to pointed comments that would have been better off unspoken.

« **Reply #223 on:** October 17, 2007, 03:01:04 PM »

Greg:
What was the problem?
They largely bid on their own projects.
They claim to be on the cutting edge of documentation.
There are other variables, but 24.7 million down the tubes?
It couldn't have been from a lack of work.
Do you know?

QUOTE
JN: Let’s put it this way, Tom Doak is not necessarily a golfer. Let’s just say I don’t think he understands what a golf shot should be. That’s not a criticism. He just doesn’t know. And that’s what I bring to a project. That’s why Sebonack turned out to be a nice golf course...
END
It's no wonder some would be curious about who did what when one of the collaborating parties drops a bomb like this.

Tom, you said you wouldn't comment on the course for five years, and when I read that could understand it, but thought it was both noble and potentially dangerous.

Though you said you won't do it, a hole-by-hole would be interesting. It would reveal two minds at work crafting a golf course. What could be more interesting? It might even reveal you know what a golf shot is.

News:

Dan Kelly

George Pazin

Rick Shefchik

JESII

Jeff_Brauer

David Stamm

George Pazin

JimFatsi

Bill_McBride

Bill_McBride

Rick Shefchik

TEPaul

Tom_Doak

Mike Sweeney

Patrick_Mucci

Jim_Bick

Mark_F

TEPaul

Jeff_Brauer

Lloyd_Cole

Robert Thompson

Greg Tallman

Greg Tallman

Tony Ristola