[Jeff_Brauer]

You know, despite popular perception around here, his ratio might not be that much less than Tom Doak's time/project ratio.

Come on, Jeff, you are really stretching things.

And your comment re: TOC and Jack doesn't bear much under scrutiny.

George,

First, your last point about whether or not golfers can understand JN courses is a good one.  I have always believed that Tour Pros market that (and make no mistake, JN's comments were almost pure marketing) and clients buy it, whereas having a course designed by and for a 20 handicapper might actually make more sense long run.  I agree it's tacit admission that it doesn't really matter, but by then, he has the contract!  And in truth, very few clients buy design, they buy marketing names, and recently the few who do buy it are using TD, CC and a few others. I agree with all of that.

I have already admitted that I stretched the point about TD's on site time a bit, and why I so glibly did it.  Go find another dead horse to beat, please!

Here are my statements on the JN/TOC matter, with a few new comments vis a vis the scrutiny for your review.  So rather than making a smug assertion (which so many here do) and standing back and admiring yourself for really sticking it to me, please go ahead and describe which part of the following doesn't bear much under scrutiny.  It would add to the discussion. You haven't and won't offend me, but I wonder just what the heck you mean!
 

I am not sure that Jack's genuine love of TOC and his view that top players understand top players better are mutually exclusive.  

(I recall Jack saying winning at TOC was most special.  For that matter, while I understand the comments by one poster in that TOC is a public course and very playable by all, I still don't see that JN couldn't admire it for both its championship qualities and playability, so I don't understand the paradox, other than I think that JN faces a gca.com paradox of "Damned if I do, Damned if I don't )

As to whether his courses should look more like TOC, is it not true that CBMac used TOC and other classic GBI courses as models, and yet, NGLA looks nothing like any of them because he realized he could only use the principles, and couldn't copy them directly?

(Well, isn't this true?  I think I could quote his writings saying the same thing if I had his book handy)


For that matter, what courses of MacKenzie, who wrote the "spirit of st andrews" really look like TOC?

(See above. Or see the title which might have read "Copying the LOOK and strategy of the old course in all new designs"


So why the snide tone when JN says he's inspired by TOC but his courses aren't Tour 18 versions?

(I think I have fleshed out why the snide tone of many on this thread rankled my feathers a bit)

[George Pazin]

Jack is on record as having a special regard for his Opens at TOC - I think he went so far as to say that all the great golfers have won there.

I don't think it's an improper inference to draw that he regards the course as extra special for any number of reasons, and I don't think it's an improper thing to point out the paradox of a person stating you need to be a top golfer to understand golf shots, while praising one of the most natural, least designed courses on the face of the earth.

Hope that explains the snide tone.

* As for all my 3 prior posts, further reading of the thread showed they were redundant, I just posted before I read the other remarks.

[Phil_the_Author]

I am still trying to understand what Jack was really trying to say with his statement about ability to hit a golf shot and how that in any way has anything to do with one's ability to understand the strategy & potential options that the architect has purposefully designed into a hole and a course.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

[George Pazin]

For that matter, what courses of MacKenzie, who wrote the "spirit of st andrews" really look like TOC?

(See above. Or see the title which might have read "Copying the LOOK and strategy of the old course in all new designs"

Haven't played a Mackenzie myself - those bastards keep ignoring my Lido competition entries - but my read of The Spirit of St Andrews is that he was espousing the wondrous elements of the strategy, the spirit, not the look.

I am relatively confident in the view that Mackenzie would consider ANGC to have been designed largely as an homage to TOC, from all my readings.

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

I agree that he was trying to capture the spirit and perhaps TD captures the flavor of the old courses better on his spectacular sites. He and a few others have shown that the look and feel of GA courses can be recaptured, when most believe its not possible with all the changes to construction techniques, etc.

But from CBMac to me to JN, gca's have thought about the subject of what to capture from TOC or GA courses and what to forge a different direction. I think the question of "what should a course look like" started at Sunningdale, the first major non seaside course.

BTW, while I agree with the ANGC homage, it too has a way different look and also, MacKenzie also mentions other courses as templates, like the 16th being similar to the 7th at Stokes Page.

Phillip,

See my post way back where I try to describe it a bit, based on other conversations with Tour pros.  They are all very consistent in what they feel a shot should be designed for.  I am not sure its about the classic strategies proposed by GA guys as much as how a ball should react or be punished (or not) by the course.  

For example, most think an overplayed draw/fade is more worthy of punishment than one that didn't curve enough (based on my limited sample)  That is not something I hear average players contemplate.  For that matter, some of the prevailing ideas often dissed as too formulaic and tour pro coddling here (1/2 stroke penalties for example) are still held sacred by those guys as good design.

And, I am not sure I agree necessarily, but perhaps JN also never hears an average player or gca say such things.  And, I guess JN would read your comment, and say "See?"

[Tom_Doak]

Brian:

While you may not like my phrasing of your previous post a "blanket statement", what I didn't like was your typecasting of my work as being all about "shaggy bunkers" and your implication that our courses aren't well manicured.

Perhaps your wife would like Tumble Creek more than Ballyneal, but to say she wouldn't like any of them, when she hasn't seen any of them -- for that matter, I don't know if YOU have seen any of them, either -- is just wrong.

Not many women get out to Pacific Dunes, but nearly all of the women who have played it just love it, in large part because they get so much more roll in the fairways that it's the rare course which isn't all about length for them.

[George Pazin]

So rather than making a smug assertion (which so many here do) and standing back and admiring yourself for really sticking it to me, please go ahead and describe which part of the following doesn't bear much under scrutiny.  It would add to the discussion. You haven't and won't offend me, but I wonder just what the heck you mean!
 

I am not sure that Jack's genuine love of TOC and his view that top players understand top players better are mutually exclusive.

Explain, please. Simply saying it ain't so, don't make it so.

 

[Mike_Young]

I can't imagine another golf oriented website that would show him such little respect, regardless of his comments on Mr. Doak.  Just from my perspective in the golf business, it drives home for me how out of touch this merry band of 1502 golf architecture crusaders can be with mainstream thinking, not the other way around.  

I also find it laughable that most on this site call for gca's to offer honest criticisms of each other, and then when JN does so, he is mostly classified as arrogant, out of touch, and generally pig headed and wrong.  It simply strikes me that a broad cross section of this board has one view on gca - that just a few architects "get it" and can go to great lengths to twist any feature (which discussing would be appropriate) or offhand comment (which, IMHO isn't worth the bandwidth) to fit their pre-concieved views.
 

Let me ask you, Jeff, the same question I've asked several times on this board.  Do you consider Jack a real golf course architect, considering he never has routed a single golf course?  I don't think I do.  He's put together a great design factory, and an excellent business.  But he's never designed a course by himself.    

Jim,
You just answered a question I have always posed here regarding "restoration experts" also.  Routing is critical.

[Tony Ristola]

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?

[Anthony_Nysse]

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.)

In any case, in none of the rankings do architects get to vote on their own courses.

Tom,
  I anticipated your response. After looking at Golf Magazine's website, it lists each of their panelists. I saw your name, but not JN's, I saw lots of other architects names, but not JN's.

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[David Lott]

As I am about to reveal in another post, my index is about 16. (I won't know exactly until I look it up because I haven't posted a score in five months. Age and illness have moved me up from around 11 a few years ago.)

From where JN sits, I am "not necessarily" a golfer at either handicap level. Indeed, most of us are "not necessarily" golfers by his standard.

Yet we play the courses too, and we understand what a golf shot is--at least our kind of shot.

Could it be that being "not necessarily" a golfer from the Nicklaus perspective is a major asset to Tom Doak?

I was never sure whether I really wanted Tiger to break Jack's record for major wins.

Until now.

[Jonathan Cummings]

I think Tom worries about what women think of his courses more than many of you think.

Tom was once gracious enough to take me around PacDunes some number of months before it opened.  Shoe, Tom and I played 11 completed holes and walked much of the remaining 7.

Jim and Dana Robson - longtime friends I was visiting Bandon with and who were playing Bandon as we went around Pac - joined us for drinks after our round.  Upon hearing that I hadn't thought of asking Tom to take Jim and Dana around Pac, Tom declared that he would have much rather heard what Dana thought of Pac from the ladies tees rather than what I thought from the mens!

I think, even to this day, women's tees are somewhat of an afterthought for modern architects.

JC    

[Kirk Gill]

I was never sure whether I really wanted Tiger to break Jack's record for major wins.

Until now.

Seriously? You now want JN's records eclipsed by Tiger Woods because you don't appreciate what he says about shot values? Heck, TW's asking for $4mil just to show up at the Australian Open pisses me off more than Jack's quotes above. Whatever. Lord knows he needs the cash.

(Incidentally, JN won the Australian Open in 64, 68, 71, 75, 76, and 78, and as far as I know never requested an appearance fee. For what that's worth.)

[Phil_the_Author]

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!  

[Jeff_Brauer]

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!  

Phillip,

Please understand that as a non tour playing gca, I am in agreement, but know enough pros to know what Jack is saying, because others say the same thing.

Simply put, its a premise that the gca should know what they are thinking, i.e. what they want in a shot that JN is referring to, not that he knows what any other gca might be thinking.  I could be wrong, but I think that JN probably didn't like any of TD's design ideas that would cost marginal strokes a full stroke penalty.  There is a vast philosophical difference in the JN/Tour Pro idea that the course should help a player around (containment, etc.) and the old RTJ idea of defending par by penalizing bad shots.


Most here, and many if not most gca's would dismiss the tour pro statement as hooey, perhaps rightfully so.  If I can describe their attitude, it starts with the JN statement that a course should never hurt a golfer.  That premise morphs into several design philosphies like leaving bail outs they rarely use, makeable putts once they reach the green, punishing the overplay more than the conservative underplay, and so on.  

It also means most tour pros are just editors, usually asking the question "what if I miss it here?" rather than the traditional strategy of "What do I gain if I hit it there?"

They think they should be able to make up that stroke (assuming it has a value of tens of thousands of dollars to them) whereas the gca is trained to think in terms of it costing them a stroke when they miss.


I don't know how else to explain it, but its late. Maybe I will try again tomorrow after I sleep on it.  And again, I don't always agree, but when going to a club with great players, they all tend to agree.  Maybe in ten years time it will change, but its something we as gca's deal with now, right or wrong......and really, its just a matter of opinion as to how a golf course should treat a golfer. As I said earlier, long live the differences!

Funny, if crass aside, in a recent tour pro discussion, the issue of rough and native grasses (including fuzzy edges) came up. The response? "It should penalize, not sodomize!"

[Tony Ristola]

Turning the Nicklaus statement on its head, all this quoting and paraphrasing of tour professionals only serves to reveal how narrow their thought processes are in most cases, and the bland, predictable courses that result from such a mentality.

[Jim Nugent]

I'm pretty sure Pete Dye beat both Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer in the 1957 U.S. Open at Inverness.  I wonder if Jack thinks Dye knows what a golf shot is?  

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[Adam Clayman]

C'mon Tom, Tell us about the knob to the right of 6, Please?

[John_Cullum]

It took a few days and six pages, but this thread finally developed into one of the most revealing threads I've ever explored on this website.

My thanks to Jeff and Tom for taking the time to share all of this.

[John Kirk]

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.

The first comment is very funny.  Comedically speaking, you are on fire lately.

I've played Sebonack.  The 9th is about 500 yards and a little uphill from the blue tees.  The green is pretty sloped, but a player could use the slope left of the green to feed balls down.  I should be able to get close to the green in two, but because of the bunker in question, it would have required a 95th percentile drive on my part to get into position.  I mishit the drive both times, and made a par and a bogey.

Most pro golfers and young college amateurs would drive over the left bunker, making this an easy birdie hole.  The addition of this bunker probably makes the most difference for a guy like me, a medium length (235-245 carry) low handicapper.  I should get a stroke in match play from the +2 or better player, who makes easy birdie, while I make an easy par playing conservatively, once I get to know the course.

On the other hand, Sebonack's target market is skilled 45-65 year old golfers.  If the course is set up so the risk reward equation is not worth the risk, that makes it less fun.

 

[Randy Thompson]

Tom,
  Just curious because I am currently co-designing with another architect and I know its hard to have two chef's in one kitchen, so far its going very well though. Did the two of you sit down and discuss some concepts on paper after walking the staking, was there an interchange of ideas? In who's office were the plans drawn up? Were these plans interchanged between the two of you during the design phase giving a chance for further evolution of the concepts. Who's shaper did the actual shaping. Last but not least, would you ever accept a future similar arrangement with the JN group. You said you would not post on this thread anymore, I agree with that decision but if you care too take the time, a short email would be appreciated.

[Brian Phillips]

Brian:

While you may not like my phrasing of your previous post a "blanket statement", what I didn't like was your typecasting of my work as being all about "shaggy bunkers" and your implication that our courses aren't well manicured.

Perhaps your wife would like Tumble Creek more than Ballyneal, but to say she wouldn't like any of them, when she hasn't seen any of them -- for that matter, I don't know if YOU have seen any of them, either -- is just wrong.

Sorry Tom I have only played Stonewall of your courses but I have studied many of the pictures of your courses and the majority of them seem to been shaggy bunker edges.  This is a compliment and I love shaggy bunkers....

...but my my wife does not.

The question was would anyone rather play a Doak course to a Nicklaus course and my answer was yes my wife because she does not like shaggy looking bunkers.

JN does mainly clean cut bunkers in comparison to what you have done.  Or am I wrong?

I did not mean to imply that your courses were not well manicured but I willing to bet that the majority of JN's courses have a much higher maintenance budget...or am I wrong there again?

And, I never said that she would NOT like any of your courses but I know she would want to play a nice looking JN course more...

Okay, lets put it another way.  If we were going to go on a holiday and she was allowed to choose, she would choose a JN course based on the pictures in magazines.

Don't take so bloody personal Tom, it is one opinion, that is all.

[cary lichtenstein]

My wife loves shaggy bunkers and fast greens.

[Bob Jenkins]

Tom,

This thread was amazing but most of all, I appreciate your participation and comments. Thank you for responding and for doing so in such a gentlemanly manner!

All the best and here is hoping you get more work in the Pacific Northwest or maybe even some work up here in BC!

Bob Jenkins

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()