[Tommy Williamsen]

I realize this has been discussed to death but I have been giving this a great deal of thought.  One of the excuses for not playing other courses is the paucity of time that Nicklaus et al have.

I'm sorry but that really does not hold water.  It really has to do with desire.  Most big time architects can choose how many courses they wish to design and how much time they desire to be on the road.  

I have many speaking engagements in both the US and Great Britain and Ireland and am on the road at least 100 days a year besides holding down a full time job.  I always schedule time to play and and as a result turn down many speaking engagements.  There are many of us who are quite busy.  Yet I have played 150 different course in Great Britain and Ireland and 500 course in the US.  A golfer's education is incomplete unless many different course are seen or played.

It seems that Nicklaus and others have set for themselves other priorities.  It seems to me that Jack loves tournament golf more than he likes just to play for the sake of playing for fun.  On the other hand he is limiting himself in his ability to study different golf holes.  He does not even have to judge them, just study them and appropiate some ideas that seem to fit in with his design philosophy. My speahes and seminars suffer when I stop reading other author's writings even authors with whom I disagree.  With out such study I grow stale and boring.  It seems that the same can be said for other disciplines as well.

Nicklaus and others don't have to spend time doing commercials  etc.  It is a matter of priority.

[John Nixon]

 It seems to me that Jack loves tournament golf more than he likes just to play for the sake of playing for fun.  On the other hand he is limiting himself in his ability to study different golf holes.  

I'm willing to bet that in the last 50 years Jack has seen more golf holes than most of this board combined. I doubt he needs to see a few more.

And I don't think the life of a golf course architect, with maybe one or two exceptions, is so lucrative that they can pick and choose when to take a job and when to turn one down to go play instead.

[Garland Bayley]

In academia, if you are not familiar with all the relevant works in your area, you will go nowhere.
Of course, I know some people on this site think Jack and his designs are going nowhere. So maybe the analogy is entirely apt.

[Garland Bayley]

...
And I don't think the life of a golf course architect, with maybe one or two exceptions, is so lucrative that they can pick and choose when to take a job and when to turn one down to go play instead.

Judging by the quantity of output of Jack's team, it is clear he could pick and choose. Some would say it is a shame that he hasn't.

[John Nixon]

So this is really a bash Jack thread in disguise?

[Joe Hancock]

In academia, if you are not familiar with all the relevant works in your area, you will go nowhere.
Of course, I know some people on this site think Jack and his designs are going nowhere. So maybe the analogy is entirely apt.

I can't imagine any sane person thinking Jack or his designs are going nowhere. Apparently there is a tension with different definitions of success leading to such conclusions.

Joe

[Steve_Roths]

Not to continue to jump on Jack's back, but I think the reason for all the golf courses, commercials, etc. is because he has to some degree.  He lost a large chunk of money several times over his career.  So, him out humping doing courses everywhere is more to keep his kids working and not personal satisfaction.  If it was personal satisfaction he would charge a design fee so high ($5million and up) that he would only have to do two or three courses a year.  He wouldn't have to spend his life on his G400 and his kids would have to make it on their own.

He could spend his time fly fishing and enjoying his home life.  He just has painted himself into two many corners too many times.

As for the architects visiting others work, I think some but are scared to break out of their molds and try something different.  I think a lot of them are just so arrogant (Norman, Fazio, Rees, etc. ) that think they are right and people keep hiring them so why change.

I will give Jack an ENORMOUS amount of credit for his recent design work.  He has really created some real winners of late like the Desert Mountain Outlaw, Sebonack, May River.  

Here is my litimus test for whether I think an architect has what it takes to build a great course.  Imagine you were the owner of Bandon Dunes and got to pick the architects for the courses who would go with?

[Joe Hancock]

Not to continue to jump on Jack's back, but I think the reason for all the golf courses, commercials, etc. is because he has to some degree.  He lost a large chunk of money several times over his career.  So, him out humping doing courses everywhere is more to keep his kids working and not personal satisfaction.  If it was personal satisfaction he would charge a design fee so high ($5million and up) that he would only have to do two or three courses a year.  He wouldn't have to spend his life on his G400 and his kids would have to make it on their own.

He could spend his time fly fishing and enjoying his home life.  He just has painted himself into two many corners too many times.

As for the architects visiting others work, I think some but are scared to break out of their molds and try something different.  I think a lot of them are just so arrogant (Norman, Fazio, Rees, etc. ) that think they are right and people keep hiring them so why change.

I will give Jack an ENORMOUS amount of credit for his recent design work.  He has really created some real winners of late like the Desert Mountain Outlaw, Sebonack, May River.  

Here is my litimus test for whether I think an architect has what it takes to build a great course.  Imagine you were the owner of Bandon Dunes and got to pick the architects for the courses who would go with?

Steve,

You draw a lot of conclusions. Are you quite close with those guys?

Joe

[Tommy Williamsen]

I really did not begin this thread to bash Jack.  I only use him as an example because of the other thread on the Golf Digest discussion.

I worry that an architect would not "want out break out of his own mold" or that someone "would not want to change because if it worked in the past why change?"

I agree that Jack has seen many, many course world wide.   On the other hand there are many courses that have been built in the last ten years that deserve a visit to study.

 It does make sense to me, however, that Jack might not want to visit Sand Hills why he was at Dismal River.  I would think he does not want anyone to say that he "copied" holes from that great course.  I hope his course is different.  And I suspect it will be.

[RJ_Daley]

Here is my litimus test for whether I think an architect has what it takes to build a great course.  Imagine you were the owner of Bandon Dunes and got to pick the architects for the courses who would go with?

Darned if you didn't almost answer your own question.

Which developers of the latest and greatest golf courses have in fact chosen JN?  Pascucci even hedged his bet and hired two archies.  Let's see...

Youngscapp...Dye, Whitman Coore/Crenshaw
Kohler... Dye, Liddy and a host of less known assistants.
Bakst...Coore/CRenshaw
Persinian... Philips
Keiser... Kidd, Doak, Coore/Crenshaw
Robertston... Harmon, Doak
Rawls...Doak
O'Neils...Doak
Ramsey on behalf of Owners... Doak

Where's Jack?  Big corporations hire Jack.  These gents listed above are arguably the smartest individual golf developers, given their successes.  

[Joe Hancock]

RJ,

Isn't Pronghorn on someone's list of latest and greatest? Where will the Dismal River project fall on our lists?

Your list is still a matter of opinion....good opinions, in my opinion, but still.

I see this thread as a speculation as to motivations and desires. I doubt all great architects derive those traits in the same way.

Joe

[Garland Bayley]

Why does Jack have to provide work for his kids? My take on parenting says he should do the opposite. There is a chinese proverb that say something like every third generation is lost. I.e., Someone goes from rags to riches. The kids have some appreciation of what was done to reach that end, and are able to maintain it. The third generation have no appreciation and lose it.

[John Kavanaugh]

Here is my litimus test for whether I think an architect has what it takes to build a great course.  Imagine you were the owner of Bandon Dunes and got to pick the architects for the courses who would go with?

Darned if you didn't almost answer your own question.

Which developers of the latest and greatest golf courses have in fact chosen JN?  Pascucci even hedged his bet and hired two archies.  Let's see...

Youngscapp...Dye, Whitman Coore/Crenshaw
Kohler... Dye, Liddy and a host of less known assistants.
Bakst...Coore/CRenshaw
Persinian... Philips
Keiser... Kidd, Doak, Coore/Crenshaw
Robertston... Harmon, Doak
Rawls...Doak
O'Neils...Doak
Ramsey on behalf of Owners... Doak

Where's Jack?  Big corporations hire Jack.  These gents listed above are arguably the smartest individual golf developers, given their successes.  

RJ,

What did you say to Bernhardt when he told you he hired Art Hills...

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:

I won't answer for Jack; I tried and failed in the earlier thread.  But I will answer for myself.

Here's how my year breaks down:

Non-golf related vacation days with my wife:  10.
With my son:  5.

Stone Eagle:  22 days, including opening and Renaissance Cup.
Sebonack:  26 including promotional.
Ballyneal:  29.
Rock Creek:  15.
Mexico:  16.
Scotland:  7.
consulting:  11.
Dunhill Links event:  7.
Bandon Trails opening:  3.
Prospects:  13.
The Canyons:  1.
Routings for two new jobs I can't divulge yet:  9.
Miscellaneous:  4.

That's 178 days.

I did manage to sneak in a little golf during the year, either at home or during the run-up to the Dunhill event.  Aside from my own work, I played at Old Sandwich, Bandon Trails, Tucson CC, Wray CC [near Holyoke], Misquamicut, Somerset Hills, San Francisco GC, St. Andrews, Kingsbarns, and Carnoustie.  I also toured Kittansett, Black Rock (ID) and Pronghorn (36 holes), but didn't have a chance to play them.

I'm sure some of the guys who work with me saw more courses than I did, but they weren't in the air as much as me.  I really didn't feel like I could take a day from Sebonack to go play National again, or play Pradera or see Colorado Golf Club before going out to Ballyneal.  Frankly, putting in another day at Ballyneal was a better use of that time.

[RJ_Daley]

John, it may be oldtimers disease, but I have no immediate recall who Bernhardt is (I assume you are not speaking of Tiger B.) , or what Art Hills is up to that I'd know anything about...

If you are speaking of Tiger B., I don't remember him telling me anything either...

Joe, I don't have the slightest clue how DR will shake out...  Would you say that the developers there are in the league of the above list? They are a group of lawyers from Denver aren't they?  I don't think they have Doug Wright in their group, either...or we might have a bit more info posted on DR to speculate upon.

[John Kavanaugh]

RJ,

Tiger B had hired Art Hills for a project he was going to build..he did this despite spending many hours on Golfclubatlas....I don't think he did it because he is stupider than Herb Kohler.  I even asked him "My God man, Why.." and he told me a very simple and logical reason that made sense economically for his project.  Your post above inclines that anyone who doesn't hire Doak or Crenshaw is stupid...Bernhardt isn't..

[McCloskey]

RJ

That post was the single dumbest post I have ever read on gca, and I have read some doosies.

Your definition of who the great developer's are is defined by whether they hired your favorite archies.  

Texas Tech is really one of the best developers in the business.   Yeah, that's right!    Why, because they hired Doak.   How utterly ridiculous!

[Andy Troeger]

RJ,
  While your list is interesting it seems you're just pointing out which smart developers chose Coore/Crenshaw or Doak. While there are few new courses that would match the best on your list based on their success (Kohler, Bandon, etc), your list is just the tip of the iceberg for wonderful courses that have been built in recent years.

[RJ_Daley]

That post was the single dumbest post I have ever read on gca, and I have read some doosies.

WOW, I have arrived... I lead in dumbest post category.  I'll take it!  I humbly accept - what did I win?

Mac, which single developer-individual has topped this list in nearly instant project noteriety, critical acclaim, from a golf course architecture excellence stand point?  Not just which courses were named-ranked best new, but which have been nearly universal in praise?  Which JN courses have been developed by individuals, or which individuals with their own skin in the game, that have topped the above list.  Of my list of individuals, I see a pattern of men that are very successful, desire to develop something of high quality, and aren't just motivated to sell lots.  They are deep into the best golf course they could develop/build, and they clearly know what they want.  

If I could be as dumb as any of those individual developers listed above, I could live with that.  

I didn't know anything about Tiger B.s development, John.  No Tiger isn't stupider than the list, but I doubt he was in the same position to develop on a world class property as the above list (except Rawls TTU land)..  

If Hills were incapable of doing a good project, and his proposals didn't match Tiger's expectations and project goals, then I'd have to say - give the man an IQ test.  Hills has a track record to make a good decision based upon his other work.  But, JB is a smart fellow, and I have every confidence he matched his project needs with archie selection.

Mac, I promise you that I do not define anyone that hires Doak automatically as being somehow smarter than other developers.  To be brutally honest, I would tend to admire the intelligence of the guy that hires the next Doak.  I think Doc Trimble in Valentine is a pretty smart guy, he hired Hanse.  

If I did something personally, I'd hire Bunkerhill + Whitman.  I'm on record for that!  I'd struggle not to hire DeVries.  And, this KBM guy sounds very interesting.  But, my dim witted mind is made up!  

Have I topped my previous single dumbest post?

[Tom_Doak]

RJ:  I would never question your post because I believe that my clients are all brilliant for hiring me.    However, your list of projects DOES read like a self-fulfilling prophecy in 20/20 hindsight, as several people have pointed out.

I am curious, though, why it would be smarter for you to hire someone who has great potential as a designer, but hasn't gotten their big break yet, than to hire someone who has proven they can succeed at the highest level?  

a)  It could be about the design fees, if you're putting the money above getting the best possible product.  
b)  It could be because you think successful architects are no longer driven to do great things, but you'd be wrong there.  Or,
c)  It could be because you want to prove you're even smarter than Dick Youngscap or Mike Keiser ... but then your ego would be getting in the way.

Nothing against Dan and Dave and Rod or Mike or anyone else mentioned above.  There's a lot of talent out there today.  But your logic is clearly opposite of the way most developers think.  They would much rather have someone with a great track record.  That's why so many people hire Nicklaus, and why a few more are hiring me now.

P.S.  I love Jerry Rawls, but he's not the same as Mike Keiser at all.  Jerry hired me because his friend Mark Parsinen told him I would do a great job.

[RJ_Daley]

Tom,
a. I don't think $$=the best possible job, necessarily.

b. I would worry if my choice for and archie has spread himself too thin.  I want my guys there because it is nearly the only thing they are doing, and they are hungry to become more recognised.  I don't think successful archies that have plenty of work are still not driven to do their best.  I just like the underdog who is talented and looking for a break.  It is a perfectly traditional American value to subscribe to.  

c. I don't think I am smarter than Youngscapp or Keiser, but I don't think I am automatically precluded from being successful either. My logic may or may not be opposite some of the developers mentioned.  I'd let them tell me that after we discussed what we really think.  I am comfortable with my choice of dream golf course design/builders track record for what I'd want to do.  If I were to put my skin in the game, I am the one that needs to feel comfortable and confident with the selection.

I do feel that there are different horses for different courses.  The site selection, area and economic/environmental aspects would weigh heavily in my decisions.  But, it is my pipedream, and I know where it is located and what is required, so I'll stick with my unwavering choice.  

[Lloyd_Cole]

This might perhaps be a disillusioning post to some, I hope not - I have for the last 20 years or so made a living creating stuff for public consumption. I find it harder and harder to focus on the job at hand, not to mention worry about plagarism, if I'm listening to 'the competition'. So I don't. I spend months, sometimes more than a year without listening to 'Arcade Fire' or whoever it is that has been recommended this week/month/year. So that I can try to realise my vision - I wear blinkers. However, in between projects, I try to listen to as much as I feel like. Sometimes that is a lot. Other times almost nothing. So can sympathise with both camps. But I can't imagine not wanting to hear the latest Kraftwerk CD. And I can't imagine not wanting to play Sand Hills (I haven't).

[Jeff_Brauer]

For what its worth, I try to get out to as many courses as possible, new and old.  Never a course that I couldn't learn SOMETHING from, IHMO.

I seek out Faz, Doak, Dye, as well as other masters and near masters from the golden age until now.....in the corporate world, its called "benchmarking" and maybe the top guys won't admit they see other stuff because they need to promote that they are the benchmark others follow.

But I will tell you two things:

First, I am not a good enough marketeer to say every idea I ever had was original. As Dan Kelly can tell you, I go around the Quarry telling him (and others) that the I wouldn't have built the second hole if I hadn't seen Tobacco Road, the sixth if I hadn't seen the ridge running second at Sand Hills, the 14th without having played the Dell hole in Ireland, etc.  It's not that any is a direct copy, but I got some "background" information of ways to handle certain situations should they ever arise.

Second, if Jack's sales pitch (or that of any PGA Pro) is that he has SEEN and played all the worlds great courses (and it usually is) then why is it a bad thing to see more courses now?  

As to Faz, once his office asked for some photos of various ASGCA members work for some industry presentation. I sent in some of a par three with a design idiom I have used a few times - three clusters of either 2 or 3 bunkers around the green at a similar angle.  When they called to thank me, they said it looked nice (also implying to me, BTW, that they were sort of surprised at the quality, but that is another story)  The point of this story is that not long after, I saw a Faz course with a similar array of bunkers, albeit some grass and reversed from the photo.  Could this picture of my work influence them?  I can't prove it, but I (like to) think it did.

Any gca who looks around a bit sees how much good work there is out there, and how much better you have to be every project, just to stay even in this field. At least, thats my opinion.  As Mr. T might have said, "I pity da fool who don't look around at other golf courses!"

[Tom_Doak]

Bill S:  It would be possible, but unlikely.  

Lloyd:  You explained part of my argument better than I did.  We are nearly always working on something, and when I am, I don't want to clutter my brain with other ideas.  I love Sand Hills, but if I'd gone there while building Ballyneal, odds are that Ballyneal would be more like Sand Hills ... and one of our main goals was to try and make it different than Sand Hills.  (Same with Sebonack and National.)  Hopefully I'll have time to go back and play them all now that we're done.

Jeff:  I agree with most of your points, but I still believe that most architects would be better off taking a three-month trip to Scotland and England than going to see every Best New winner from the last ten years.  There is a lot of talent out there today, but there isn't as much diversity as there used to be.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I think Tom and Lloyd make great points.  I would like to travel to Scotland before the start of every new project.  That is why I think AM title Spirit of St. Andrews is so great.  It is not so much noting ideas and particular features as much as it is putting yourself in the middle of something and allowing it to enter your pores.  Two totally different approaches.  you can mimic what you like which is superficial or you can absorb what you like or even what you don't realize at the time you like and then let it exude from your spirit.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()