Nicklaus on Doak

[George Pazin]

I participate on golf club atlas, and I want to ask you about your architecture......"  That would make all of us defensive!

Why?

I don't understand people reacting defensively to someone who takes umbrage at their "honesty".

If you are going to be blunt, how can you not expect the same from others?

EDIT: removed stupid personal example.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Robert Thompson,

I wonder how Jack would explain Seth Raynor's ability to craft interesting, fun and challenging golf courses, given that he wasn't a golfer and thus, according to Jack, didn't understand what a golf shot should be ?

But, that raises an interesting question.

Is routing, hole and feature design a function and by-product of physical or intellectual activity, and/or both ?

I may agree with Jack in a global sense, but, not when it comes to specific individuals.

[Mike Wagner]

I love Jack's comment on not wanting to collaborate, but he does with his kids, saying "why don't we adjust this or do that."  Sounds like he's getting his way no matter what - what a regime!

Precisely why his courses are not fun for every level of golfer - who wants to hit long irons to shallow greens.  Nicklaus has lost a lot in my book - his ego-centric atitude seems to be coming forth with age..

[Lester George]

I wonder if Jack taught Morrish, Cupp and Dye like he claims to have taught his current associates?  So much bulls$%t.

He really needs to tone down his "greatness".  The fact remains, he was forced to calloborate with TD and has resented it ever since.  He should have manned up and walked off, but his extraordinary ego wouldn't allow that.  

Lester

[Walt_Cutshall]

I grew up a big fan of Jack Nicklaus. He hit his prime at a time when I became seriously addicted to the game. Unfortunately, since Jack has aged and Tiger has made a terminator-like march toward his records, Nicklaus has grown more bitter and brittle with each passing day. His comments, as described in this thread, are very disappointing IMO. They don't further the craft of golf course architecture. They don't illuminate the accomplishment of the building of Sebonack. They just make Jack Nicklaus sound like an egotistical arse.

Take the high road on this one, Tom.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak routed Sebonack and Nicklaus thinks he provided most of the strategy for the golf course? I guess that says a whole lot about what I call the "designing up" phase of a golf course project.  

Nicklaus said Tom Doak doesn't understand what a golf shot should be??

That's one of the oddest remarks I've ever heard from a golf architect. Tom Doak has become a successful architect and Nicklaus thinks he doesn't understand what a golf shot should be, huh??

My God.

Do you think we should start a thread to discuss what a golf shot should be? I wonder if anyone on here knows what a golf shot should be?

Nicklaus has been in golf for what 45-50 years or so? Do any of you know if he's ever told anyone what a golf shot should be?

[Ron Farris]

Wow, a very interesting thread!  I think my 13 year old son knows what a golf shot should be.  Recently I ask him how he was going to his approach shot to a green that had a front pin.  Before he hit the shot he said he was going to pitch to the fringe and let it trickle on and nestle up to the pin.  His shot - pitched to the fringe and it trickled on and struck the pin, bounced off, and he had a tap in birdie.  I think he knew what golf shot (option) best fit his game and he pulled it off. I thought that was a rare feat!

Perhaps Jack meant to say that Tom doesn't know exactly what a golf SHOT that Jack would hit.   [I digress - far be it from me even speculate what Jack envisions} How many golf shots are actually hit as they are envisioned?   I dream of the day that I play Sebonack and try to decipher the strategy and the thought process of what a golf shot should be!

[Andrew Summerell]

Nicklaus is older now & can't hit the shots he use to. Does that mean he knows less about architecture?

Of course, when Tiger has won more majors than Nicklaus, Jack will only be the 2nd best architect in the world.

[Voytek Wilczak]

Do you have to be a virtuoso musician to write a great symphony?

[Mike_Young]

Seems to me this thread is getting blown out of proportion just a little.
For other than the 1500 people on this site who really get into the architecure scene......JN is the man.....sure some of the comments don't make much sense regarding strategy etc .   Just a few weeks ago I had a friend with me at Crystal downs and we played with TD and Freddie the golf professional.....my friend did not know who TD was or what he did for a few holes......he would have known JN on the first hole and not been able to draw it back.  NONE OF THIS IS A SLAP AT TD.  Both are golf architects but one mass produces and the other builds custom.....and both are good at what they do.  JN courses sell a lifestyle which sells real estate and big clubhouses.  TD is designing a golf experience (I dont know he may have some housing developments).  Personally, I would choose TD path.  Using cars as an example.....even Mercedes would be considered a top of the line auto but mass produced...great car but there comes a day when a very few mercedes owners will move up to the maserati etc.....just like the guys building their on golf courses over the upscale development courses.....TD has that market more than JN.....JN can never get that market because of how he has branded himself.....two entirely different markets...two entirely different architects...two entirely different strategies...JN was probably trying so hard to not slip that he did not even know he made the comment.

[Ron Kern]

Interesting thread.  

Requiring the player to execute a variety of shots throughout a round of golf is the mark of a good golf architect.  

It's imperative that a credible golf architect is a student of the game and understands how the game is played, how various shots are played, by players of varying skill levels...  That goes without saying, right?  Is the only way an architect can gain this knowledge by having tour level ball striking, putting and recovery shot abilities.  I hardly think so.  

A couple of questions -  Is understanding what a golf shot "should be" different than understanding what a golf shot "is?"*  And, is a "golf shot" a singular thing?



*Maybe Bill Clinton could help me out a little here.

Now returning to lurkerdom.

[Dan Kelly]

If Jack Nicklaus has not seen or played Tom Doak's (or Coore/Crenshaw's) courses, how would he know how they play for a guy who knows how to hit a golf shot?

[Tom_Doak]

Robert:  Thanks for the clarification and the further quote.  Apparently Jack doesn't come off as gracious in print as he does in public appearances.

I don't know why you posted this topic except to fan the flames, but it won't get much of a response from me, except to point out that I AM a golfer -- just not a championship golfer.  Jack should know that, as I played golf with him for the opening of Sebonack, and I've got it on DVD [though I have never watched it].

I also find it interesting that Jeff just keeps trying to defend the fellow plaid-blazer guy [I remember him defending the idea of collaboration before, now he's against it because Jack is] -- but Lester sure doesn't!

These comments are not unusual for Jack although some of them go a bit further than what I've seen him say before, particularly in how he collaborates with his own guys.  He told the GOLF DIGEST group a couple of years back that the consultant to Augusta National [a certain Mr. Fazio] doesn't know anything about how to play golf, so I guess I'm in good company.

[Mike_Young]

Reading the above reply from TD....pertaining to his golf skills....
I wager he outdrives JN by at least 20 today.....how would that play out at an opening?

[John Kirk]

I wager he outdrives JN by at least 20 today.....how would that play out at an opening?

Nah, I don't think so.  I say "The Olden Bear" can still pop it out there pretty far when he wants.

Robert,

An excellent follow up question would have been, "For instance, where did you make changes that added strategy to Sebonack?", or something to that effect.

Your blog is very nice, by the way.

[Dan Kelly]

I don't know why you posted this topic except to fan the flames

I, for one, think they're very interesting comments.

Journalists post. That's what they do.

[Steve Lapper]

Interesting thread.  

A couple of questions -  Is understanding what a golf shot "should be" different than understanding what a golf shot "is?"*  And, is a "golf shot" a singular thing?


*Maybe Bill Clinton could help me out a little here.

I'm not certain Bill is best to help out here. While his understanding of the "money shot," remains undeniable, his choice of venues and their regrettable architecture certainly leave much to be desired!

[Lester George]

TD,

I think you'll find I'll never defend anyone who tries to trivialize those who have WORKED their way to their craft.  Jack is trying to say that you (and the rest of us who aren't the "Greatest Player") are somehow less qualified than he becuase we don't know what a golf shot should be.  

It's further proof of the sense of entitlement these guys percieve because they are sound practioners of their craft, but do extend that same respect to others.  I don't consider any player an accomplished architect until they LEARN form experience, which usually means they learn from an accomplished architect.  Not that my opinion means anything to anyone else, but I'm not sure there is a reasonable example of any player turned architect that has not either studied or worked alongside an accomplished architect.  

Just my thoughts, don't care what kind of jacket he wears.  

Lester  

[Robert Thompson]

I wager he outdrives JN by at least 20 today.....how would that play out at an opening?

Nah, I don't think so.  I say "The Olden Bear" can still pop it out there pretty far when he wants.

Robert,

An excellent follow up question would have been, "For instance, where did you make changes that added strategy to Sebonack?", or something to that effect.

Your blog is very nice, by the way.

Thanks for the kind remarks re: the blog.

The interviews, to clarify, took place over a 20 minute face-to-face and then a phone call. I found Jack to be very rigid in his take on golf design -- which was the topic at hand. To be clear, the questions in the Q&A format were cleaned up for publication, but the context was the same and the discussion evolved as it did in the article (and if that goes online, I'll drop by to post a link).

I too found Jack's comments intriguing, but in the case of a short interview, one doesn't really have time to argue details that might not interest a general readership. However, I wondered afterwards if you can call working with your sons and other employees "collaboration," if you say you taught them what to do and they emulate what it is you want them to do. That doesn't sound like collaboration -- that sounds like direction.

[Robert Thompson]

Robert:  Thanks for the clarification and the further quote.  Apparently Jack doesn't come off as gracious in print as he does in public appearances.

I don't know why you posted this topic except to fan the flames, but it won't get much of a response from me, except to point out that I AM a golfer -- just not a championship golfer.  Jack should know that, as I played golf with him for the opening of Sebonack, and I've got it on DVD [though I have never watched it].

I also find it interesting that Jeff just keeps trying to defend the fellow plaid-blazer guy [I remember him defending the idea of collaboration before, now he's against it because Jack is] -- but Lester sure doesn't!

These comments are not unusual for Jack although some of them go a bit further than what I've seen him say before, particularly in how he collaborates with his own guys.  He told the GOLF DIGEST group a couple of years back that the consultant to Augusta National [a certain Mr. Fazio] doesn't know anything about how to play golf, so I guess I'm in good company.

Tom: As for why I posted it -- I thought Jack's take on both subjects (collaboration and other courses) was interesting, considering he's among the best known designers ever.

I think the response to the remarks is relatively varied.

In most regards, I'm not surprised at Jack's remarks about collaboration, but I was surprised at his put down of your strategic abilities. Then again, as has been aptly pointed out, he's also putting down the abilities of a lot of others.

However, it does make you sound like a window dresser, while he builds the house.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I participate on golf club atlas, and I want to ask you about your architecture......"  That would make all of us defensive!

Why?.......If you are going to be blunt, how can you not expect the same from others?

George,

Like Craig, an attempt at humor. Of course, most humor is funniest when it rings true!

While you would think that being blunt would naturally go both ways, in real life it doesn't giving rise to the oft needed phrase "Can dish it out but can't take it!"

Tom D,

Plaid?  You mean Tartan?  Hey, if you want me to defend you more often, you oughta get you some of that!  Seriously, I was defending Jack Fricking Nicklaus as much as ASGCA.  In most parts of the golf world, he would be thought to deserve some slack.

I don't recall everything I may have written here on collaboration, but think my last offering on the subject was something on the order of "Old MacDonald has Doak, what else do they need?"  However, even if I defended it in theory, my post on this thread simply acknowledges it would be difficult, but not impossible, to collaborate and many gca's would usually avoid it if they could.  I think.

Its not just all ego either.   When I am out on site trying to figure out the best solution, and considering the million things we need to, adding one extra - "what would my collaborator think?" can chill the process, at least in my experience.

Going back to the TD doesn't know a golf shot comment.  I really took that as being a) standard pro marketing and b), standard pro belief. Its amazing how consistent the half dozen tour pros I have collaborated with are on what makes for a good shot, and how the golf course ought not stop them from making it.  TD, I think, and tries to set up shots that are difficult to execute, or require different type shots.  

Pros hate that stuff, and thus JN's comments.  Its not quite that cut and dried, but its close!

[Jim Nugent]

At the very least, courses based on collaborations are different than they would be otherwise, as JN says.  What would Sebonac look like if Doak took the lead on strategy and JN implemented the aesthetics?

I'm more interested in knowing what Sebonack would look like if Tom had designed the course completely solo, without Nicklaus.  

This topic reminds me of a story I read about JN.  When he was 13 or 14, Sam Snead played an exhibition at Jack's home course.  Jack did not go to the clinic Sam put on at the driving range.  "He can't teach me anything," was Jack's supposed explanation.  

While I don't know if the story is true, it seems to fit Jack's remarks and attitudes about golf course architecture.  

I'd love to see Jack route a course himself: apparently his associates always do the routing.  I'd also like to know exactly what strategy he added to Sebonack.

Those of you who have played Muirfield Village and Sebonack: which do you like more?  Which do you think is the better course?  Would you put MV in America's top 20?  50?  100?    

[Carlyle Rood]

Obviously there are exceptions; however, I believe the following holds true:

1. Golf architects prefer to build new courses.

2. Golf architects prefer to work solo.

3. Golf architects prefer their own work.

4. As long as the market permits, golf architects will build new courses by themselves.

5. If the market declines, golf architects will renovate old courses and collaborate on new courses.

6. If the market dictates that golf architects collaborate on new courses, golf architects will say far more flattering things about their colleagues.

Carlyle

[TEPaul]

Lester George said:

"TD,
I think you'll find I'll never defend anyone who tries to trivialize those who have WORKED their way to their craft.  Jack is trying to say that you (and the rest of us who aren't the "Greatest Player") are somehow less qualified than he becuase we don't know what a golf shot should be."

Lester:

I think you're right about that but I think it could be that Jack was just trying to say that even some good architects (who aren't really good players) don't really understand some particular strategies the way some very good players look at them. And if you think about that why wouldn't they feel that way?

I'm not sure that's much of an insult unless one takes it the wrong way. It makes sense to me that Nicklaus might have meant that because the next thing he said was that he provided those strategies at Sebonack (not Doak).

I sort of remember a post on here from Tom Doak years ago when he mentioned he'd gone around a course with some tour pro (for some reason Steve Elkington comes to mind) and Tom said he really did learn a whole lot from that about how a really good player like that looks at playing a course and the strategies that are going through his head.

I don't specifically remember if TD talked about it in detail but something tells me most of it could've been about how a player like that looks at approaching greens. And if one thinks about it that probably is the area where a really great player like a Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, Watson, Miller, Els, Woods etc excels at the level they play on.

But this begs a question. If that's true, how important is it in the overall scheme of things on a golf course or in golf architecture to even know things like that since hardly anyone else can regularly hit shots like that so why should they even bother to think like that or even understand what shots like that should be?  

To take this even a step farther, it seems to me the likes of a Nicklaus might be talking about something even more nuancy when it comes to the use of various strategies in the inventory and arsenal of a ball stiker of the type Nicklaus was.

It occurs to me that most of the best tour pros and more and more of the lesser well known ones today operate "on course" in tournaments under this course management idea of "patience".

What does that really mean in their high level shot making strategic world?

I think it means that those top players play tournament golf under the idea that "you can lose a tournament on Thursday but you can't win one then". They always talk about "being patient" and just putting themselves "in position".

It's probably at that point (on Sunday or even on the back nine) when they are near that position that they consider changing their strategies and perhaps getting more aggressive in their shot choices and shot making.

We have to understand that those guys really are good but most of the time they are playing pretty conservative for them compared to what they could be doing but they do that simply as a form of "risk management" to avoid stupid mistakes that could take them right out of a tournament.

Does Tom Doak really understand what all those kinds of shots and nuances are or should be from a guy like Nicklaus or Woods et al?

Does it even matter that he should know those kinds of things in what he designs and builds? And if so, what does it actually mean via architecture and on the ground?

I think I might have seen a very good example of that recently on that project I'm meeting with Paul Cowley on sometimes.

On the second hole a bunker was put in on the left front of the green that given all the rest of what the green and its surrounds is about looked to me to make shots into at least the front of that green nearly impossible to most any golfer except maybe Davis Love, Mark or Forrest Fezler who's working on the project too.

I mean those guys understand that approach shot because they're capable of hitting it combined with their length off the tee but who in the hell else would be in the membership of Newark CC?

Thankfully that bunker was shifted to the right front of the green making approach shots to that green by many more regular golfers something they can both understand and do.

[Brent Hutto]

Of course all this is predicated on the idea that a course's merit is determined by the challenge it presents to someone who "understand what a golf shot should be", i.e. to one of the 1,000 or so most skilled golfers on the planet. I might give Nicklaus some credit for having special, valuable insight (as a great player) toward building one of the best major-championship venues in the world. If that's what the goal happens to be, does anyone know if Sebonac is intended to host elite events?

Then again Jack would have to give strokes to Pete Dye who seems able to come up with courses that challenge the heck out of Nicklaus-level players. So I guess I can't even cut him that much slack after all...