[Tom_Doak]

I do not understand the knocks on Jack using "associates" in his works.

Tell me someone who does not?

I know TD spends a fair amount of time on site but it is not as though he is there day in day out tweaking this and perfecting that... an "associate" may be but Tom is not. That is not a knock, just the reality. If Tom were on site everyday during construction his fees mught make Jack's look like pocket change.

Coore and Crenshaw don't exactly "move in" when doing a project do they?

Just using the best in the bsiness and the most popular on thsi site as examples.

Why is Jack the whipping boy for this particular criticism?

I dare someone to say that spending a few more days on site over a 400-500 day period makes an appreciable difference. Can't hurt but is it something that is a make or break type of deal? I do not believe so.

I would also suggest that having someone of the ilk of Jim Lipe would also rival or surpass someof the "shingle names" when it comes to design. 

Greg:

Okay, I am going to take you up on your dare.  I think spending a few more days on site over a 400-500 day period is really important.

Do you really believe there is no difference between the 30 days I spent on site at Sebonack, and the six or seven days that Jack spent there?  If you don't think that the course would have benefited from another 2-3 days of Jack's time, it would only be because you think that the other guys on site [and there were a LOT of talented guys there] were all more valuable than Jack.

Trying to design all of the details of a golf course in six or seven days is just too much.  You have to make a lot of snap decisions and never take time to really think about them, so there is no way you will be as creative as you could be with a bit more time.  I've done my best to optimize my own time, and it comes out to 7-15 days prior to construction and 25-30 days during construction.

Everyone is different, and Jack uses his time more efficiently than anybody I know.  He would rather build more courses than spend more time doting on the details.  But he is still trying to cram a thousand decisions into seven days, or relying on others to make many of those decisions on his behalf -- and, frankly, in years past he did not allow his own crew to be as creative as they might have been.  I think that is one thing he took away from Sebonack, to give his associates more chance to shine instead of trying to design every single hole himself right at the start.

Is Jack the whipping boy for this criticism?  Perhaps.  From what I have heard there are plenty of other big-name architects who make no more than six or seven site visits during construction, and a few who don't even make that many on a sizeable portion of their designs.  I have a hard time relating to that, considering that Pete Dye was there at Long Cove [at 6:30 a.m. with the crew] about 60 days out of the 75 I worked on the project in the summer of '81. 

Certainly, Bill Coore puts me [and Jack!] to shame in how many days he spends on site, but we are just different -- I like to work faster, nailing one or two greens a day when I'm on site, and I've assembled a faster team accordingly.

I look forward to your rebuttal.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think the real legacy is running a profitable company and doing less with great land. I actually mean grossed more revenue as a firm. his approach also burns through a huge amount of money as well. I also feel Tom Doak, Bill Coore and many others spend significantly more time on site than Jack the use of his design team is his call and just a function of management which all the bigger firms have to deal with. I do think his best work is ahead for he seems to be learning with time.

[Mac Plumart]

You guys in the business...help me with this one...

Does Jack Nicklaus actually do the designing?  And when someone says designing, they are talking routing.  Correct?

I ask because I heard over and over that Chris Cochran was the designer at Dismal River.


Switching topics a bit...Bill Coore does the routing for C&C, right?  When he routes a course and says he wants a bunker in spot X, does Jeff Bradley step in and work his magic?

[Tom_Doak]

Mac:

The fact that people will disagree over what qualifies one to be considered the "designer" of a course, means there is no good answer to your question about Mr. Nicklaus.  His firm is not explicit about who has done the routings for their courses.  Jack certainly approves every one of them, but it is not for public record how much time he spends coming up with them or changing them.

Bill Coore indeed does the routings for Coore & Crenshaw, though he never pronounces one finished until Ben has visited the site once or twice and looked at different options that Bill is considering.

I'm surprised to hear anyone saying that Chris Cochran was the "architect" of Dismal River.  He was the lead associate and I think he had more input on that course than Jack's associates used to get, partly because it was just after Sebonack and Jack thought that was a good thing, and partly because the course was built so quickly that Jack did not have time to make his six or seven one-day visits.  But, I only have knowledge of the project second- and third-hand, I wasn't there at all during construction.

[Mac Plumart]

Great stuff Tom...thanks!

[Jason Topp]

At this point at least, Jack's biggest legacy is his insistence on the highest (in his view) maintenance standards for his courses. 

I also find his tougher courses ask more of a player with the irons than any other designer. 

[Eric Smith]

I also think Ulrich really hit the nail right on the hammer, grabbed the bull by the balls, and knocked the horns right out of the park with his comment...

Mind bottling, Macintosh.  Let's plan another trip...I need more cow bell.

Mike Dugger,

I'm sorry to have ruffled your potato chips...nothing personal.  I know you despise the guy and I wanted to defend him.  He didn't even invoke Old Tom -- Bill did earlier in the thread.  And what you originally wrote in response to Melvyn, before editing it, was just plain mean spirited.

Who is right and who is wrong?  Surely all there is is opinion.  I think Mayhugh said that to me once in discussing this board.

But, if you are telling me that you weren't being a smart ass to Chris in the other thread, then I'll take you at your word, apologize and move on.

Eric

[Randy Thompson]

I just visited one of his courses today in construction in Argentina and  have a few positive comments following my visit. I like more today in compárrison to what I have seen during other visits to his other construction sites in the past including the one we were involved in.  Nine holes was 80% grown in and the other nine progressing nicely in various stages. It had a more natural look! The routing looked good and seemed to flow with the terrain. Its was not spectacular but a very good basic golf foundation for the majority of players. I really think his associates are doing a good job.

[JWL]

Randy
Can you tell us the name of the project that you are referring to?
Are you sure that it is not a Nicklaus Design project, seperate from a signature design?
thanks

[Mike_Young]

Jack's Legacy:
IMHO JN is an extremely intelligent person and maybe the greatest player of the game..he picks up design ideas as he sees them and goes from there....since he was able to require large budgets he was able to give his staff opportunities they would not otherwise have when it came to creating golf courses...I have met several young men who carried a pompous attitude toward us "regional" designers and this was definitely due to their connection to the JN organization and not their design abilities( just a couple not all)...yet he has had some good senior designers in his stable such as Jim Lipe.  They definitely enhance JN.  

I think he brought two things to golf design....1.  he was one of the first to bring the course to the property ...often "placing the hole on the land instead of finding the hole within.  2.  He created the modern "tiered" green with targets within greens .

As for golf....he will be known as creating the era of the signature designer....and that era will not be back....he marketed the golf course via his name as a player as an amenity that could enhance RE values and was probably not as attentive as to what it did to golf the game.  If you look back JN and other signatures never sought out or marketed toward "daily fee" or muni courses until the private RE projects began to decrease....and then they went full blast into that area.  This entire era will be known for the business of golf destroying the game of golf....and that was the fault of many not just JN....
BUT in summary we all have to give the man a lot of credit for golf growing as much as it has....I have only met him once but from all the guys I know that know him they all admire the guy and say he is as astute and intense as anyone they have ever met....a good family man and good guy....the Legacy will show him as one of the best...

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Well said Mike

[Greg Tallman]

I do not understand the knocks on Jack using "associates" in his works.

Tell me someone who does not?

I know TD spends a fair amount of time on site but it is not as though he is there day in day out tweaking this and perfecting that... an "associate" may be but Tom is not. That is not a knock, just the reality. If Tom were on site everyday during construction his fees mught make Jack's look like pocket change.

Coore and Crenshaw don't exactly "move in" when doing a project do they?

Just using the best in the bsiness and the most popular on thsi site as examples.

Why is Jack the whipping boy for this particular criticism?

I dare someone to say that spending a few more days on site over a 400-500 day period makes an appreciable difference. Can't hurt but is it something that is a make or break type of deal? I do not believe so.

I would also suggest that having someone of the ilk of Jim Lipe would also rival or surpass someof the "shingle names" when it comes to design. 

Greg:

Okay, I am going to take you up on your dare.  I think spending a few more days on site over a 400-500 day period is really important.

Do you really believe there is no difference between the 30 days I spent on site at Sebonack, and the six or seven days that Jack spent there?  If you don't think that the course would have benefited from another 2-3 days of Jack's time, it would only be because you think that the other guys on site [and there were a LOT of talented guys there] were all more valuable than Jack.

Trying to design all of the details of a golf course in six or seven days is just too much.  You have to make a lot of snap decisions and never take time to really think about them, so there is no way you will be as creative as you could be with a bit more time.  I've done my best to optimize my own time, and it comes out to 7-15 days prior to construction and 25-30 days during construction.

Everyone is different, and Jack uses his time more efficiently than anybody I know.  He would rather build more courses than spend more time doting on the details.  But he is still trying to cram a thousand decisions into seven days, or relying on others to make many of those decisions on his behalf -- and, frankly, in years past he did not allow his own crew to be as creative as they might have been.  I think that is one thing he took away from Sebonack, to give his associates more chance to shine instead of trying to design every single hole himself right at the start.

Is Jack the whipping boy for this criticism?  Perhaps.  From what I have heard there are plenty of other big-name architects who make no more than six or seven site visits during construction, and a few who don't even make that many on a sizeable portion of their designs.  I have a hard time relating to that, considering that Pete Dye was there at Long Cove [at 6:30 a.m. with the crew] about 60 days out of the 75 I worked on the project in the summer of '81. 

Certainly, Bill Coore puts me [and Jack!] to shame in how many days he spends on site, but we are just different -- I like to work faster, nailing one or two greens a day when I'm on site, and I've assembled a faster team accordingly.

I look forward to your rebuttal.

  I knew you would and was trying to tease you out a bit. I do not disagree with most of what you say but do believe a few days over 400-500 may produce something great that would have been missed but at the same time might well produce nothing additional. A lot of it boils down to find vs. create but I beleve that to be a bit overstated in many instances. Bill is a fascinating person and a keen eye... did not take long to grasp that. He pointed pointed out a few things on a quick tour of our facility that I would not have understood without his identifying it.

At any rate I had no doubt you would take the dare.

[Chris Johnston]

Melvyn,

Perhaps you ought to ask Ulrich to clarify his position, without coming across like an ass.  

Does it have to do with it being a different era?

While I type you've probably already edited your comments, but show me please where Melvyn is being an ass.  I just don't see it and I don't believe Ulrich took it as such.

"I was not aware Old Tom Morris wasn't a player".......Melvyn writes.

This coming from a man who is related to Old Tom.

That's what I call snarky....smart assed....

Keep your head buried in the sand, Eric, if you wish, but NOBODY......don't NOBODY ever say anything about Old Tom Morris without clearing it with Melvyn first.

Because Melvyn is the authority on Old Tom, and how golf OUGHT to be...

You didn't seem to have a problem with snarky....smart assed comments in your post to Chris Johnston on the Dismal thread this morning -- so why the bile here?  Surely you don't think we've forgotten how you feel about Mr. Morrow.

Okay Eric Smith.....now you've got my attention.

I don't find anything about what I said on the Dismal River thread to be snarky.  It was the truth, and sometimes that hurts.

I think Chris Johnston got on the soapbox that is Jack Nicklaus design and spewed corporate schtick.

My problem with that is this isn't the place for it, or at least it didn't use to be.  There have been enough instances cited over the years that have me firmly convinced Jack isn't the type of designer who "digs in deep."  He doesn't spend a ton of time in the field, he doesn't visit nearby golf courses to see what they are up to. 

His associates might......but then call it like it is I say!

But I digress.  My point is, spare us that kinda talk around here, will ya Chris Johnston, it's insulting to our intelligence and it's not something we are interested in hearing.  I get all I can handle of that sorta stuff from Golf, Golf Digest, The Golf Channel and innumerable fish wraps selling housing, balls, clubs, golf memberships, etc...

Michael

Now you have my attention, having insulted me twice in one day.  Many thanks!   I made a comment about architecture and an esteemed architect, arguably the best in the modern era, on a thread about architecture.  I am not a corporate guy, although I can assure you I have been in and around the golf business far more than most. 

I won't insult you as I am a fan of all architecture and golf.  I respect those who share this affinity, even those who may not share my views.  Intolerance on this thread and site is rather childish. 

It is obvious you don't like Jack Nicklaus and you are entitled to your opinion.  I can respect that.  I will refrain from calling you names even though you admit above to no first hand knowledge about Mr. Nicklaus or design. 

Apologies to all here who had to read this and many thanks to those who extended a warm welcome to this newbie.

[Peter Pallotta]

Great discussion. I thnk JN's legacy will be dozens of very good tests of golf that reflect both the era in which he worked and his own personality and tastes.A fine legacy, and one that I think JN would be proud of.

Peter

[Rob Rigg]

It seems like perceived architect quality has been tied up in the ranking for the past 20 years or whatever so in 50 and/or 100 years one would imagine that Jack's legacy as a course designer would depend on how many of this tracks are on the Top 100 or Top 100 Classic (I guess they'll be classic at that point?).

Not sure exactly where he stands now - but I think he has a decent number of courses on the various lists - who knows if they will stay there or be forgotten.

Sebonack, Muirfield and HT were all co-designs which I think are three of his highest rated courses.

I would imagine he will have 2 to 5 courses on the lower half of the various lists while contemporaries such as C&C, Doak, Hanse, maybe Kidd will have an equal number or more which are also higher on the list?

Does that make sense at all?

Also - Do Jack's courses fall from the various lists when he is no longer around to market them?

Maybe Dismal River and some of his later designs will rate higher than the earlier "favored" works.

Or maybe Jack will just be remembered as a guy who designed a ton of courses - and most of them were pretty solid. That's not too bad (although I'm sure he would not be excited about it).

[Kris Shreiner]

Mike Young,

Your assessment, pointing to the era of the extortionate "designer" golf courses, as a period when golf went the wrong way is bang on. Greed and profit trumped responsible stewardship of the land and sustainable, affordable golf growth.

There's nothing the matter with well-done, higher end projects.  But let's be frank, it got wildly out of hand. Sadly some real multilation resulted and the game has quite a ways to go to clean up the mess.

Chris,

While JN has certainly been prolific, putting him at the top of the modern era is debatable. I do think your property may have the potential to be one of his best. I think Jack's design legacy will be that of a great champion golfer, who parlayed his fame into a very profitable, course design business, with a "good product," volume-based body of work in the main. He does have some notable efforts, and DR could well join the upper tier. Here's hoping!

[Sean_A]

OTM won four Opens, so nobody would accuse him of not having been a player

But a "player turned designer" as I understand it in the context of this thread would be someone, who had two careers: first he made his living as a player and then as a course architect. OTM did not have two careers, he was a "golf professional" at a time, when that could mean any of playing, caddying, greenkeeping, making balls/clubs, teaching golf, designing courses, running club affairs etc. For one thing, designing courses could hardly be seen as a career in most of OTM's life, it just didn't pay enough.

Willie Park Jr. is a good argument, but I would consider him a clubmaker in his first career. Maybe I'm wrong about Braid as well, maybe he did things I don't know about. But he strikes me as the first guy with those two careers: playing and designing. Is he known for anything else in golf? Well, he did jump-start the PGA, so maybe I should count that as his second career instead of golf architecture.

Ulrich

Ulrich

Not to bust your chops, but Park Jr really blasted into the design business when it was clear his money making days as a golfer were over - Braid, Vardon and Taylor saw to that.  It is true Park Jr did take over the family club making business, but again, I think design really became his main focus by the turn of the century.  He did make lengthy trips to North America for the purpose of expanding his design busness.  It is even thought the stress of design work and his inability to fully recover from the Huntercombe disaster brought on an early death.  

James Braid concurrently had a club pro career and a design career after his services for exhibition matches were less sought after.  In fact, so far as I know, Braid always had a club pro job during his prime playing days.  He was taken on by Walton Heath from day 1 of its existence and before that was the pro at Romford for 8 years.  Stipulated in Braid's contract with Walton Heath was 90 DAYS LEAVE A YEAR - astonishing.  He used that time to play tournament golf, exhibition golf and design courses.  And Braid did get around.  He was known to have memorized much of the mainline train schedules of England, Wales and Scotland.  By the end of WWI it was clear Braid's days as a competitive golfer were essentially over, but he was 50!  It is true that Braid picked up the design side of things considerably after WWI, but he was well known as a designer before having been involved with a great many courses.  Indeed, it could well be that Gleneagles was the split time for Braid.  He started on this course before the troubles started, but it wasn't opened til after the war ended.  Of course, there was no Open Champioship (and other tournaments were absent) for five years which likely also played a part in this period being a transition time for Braid.  I also don't believe it was a coincidence that one of Braid's best works was done during a done period of competitive golf.  With time, a good piece of land and a new build, it is easier to see how good an archie Braid was.  Although, it should be noted that Braid's partner, Hutchison, may be the most under-rated archie ever.  In any case, he was very able and knowledgable.

I really can't see much difference between park Jr and Braid in terms of how their careers had overlapping parts to them.  If anything, Braid kept a true duel role (and it must be said that his main job was as a club pro) much longer than Park Jr.  In fact, Braid died a club pro at the age of 80.  

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

John Mayhugh

I have no problem with Ulrich, we at times correspond off GCA.com and neither of us have any reason to be offended. We may at times disagree with the odd comments or opinions. Is that not healthy debate and perhaps one of the reasons Ran created GCA.com.

My comment “OTM £1 per day rates for design seems to say he was in that business, but as I do not want to make an Ass of myself I will just say again I do not agree with you”  does in no way show that I have taken offense to Ulrich’s posts


John, like Michael it’s the same old attitude of having a go at Melvyn at any opportunity in the hope of driving me from this site.

I understand Ulrich’s point, but my comment is that OTM WAS a designer, after Allan Robertson he was one of the first players to go into course design becoming one of the main course designers in GB&I with todate in excess of 100 designs and modifications to his name.


I was just pointing out that he was a designer in his own right by reinforcing the point by confirming that OTM Charging £1 per day for his time when designing (see PPS for breakdown of charges- salary). On top of other activities already mentioned.


My comments and that from Ulrich where of friends exchanging opinions until that is Michael stirs his sickness into the pot for his own warped ends.

Melvyn

PS  Thanks Eric.



PPS  Let’s examine the money values as I think this may prove that one could make a living out of design by charging £1per day in the 19th Century. That was close to $100 a day.
Before continuing lets remembers that Old Tom kept his Fee of £1 per day from the 1860’s onward as his way of helping new clubs form, not burdening them with large debts before they started acquiring a large Membership. Any volunteers from the current Band of Designers, as it would be for the good of the game.
The annual Salary of Old Tom was £50 a year, other Green Keepers/ Professionals were on £25 per year, so to equate £1 its equivalent to one week’s salary for the average individual. That breaks down to the fact that Old Tom weekly salary was £1 per week but charged £1 per day for design. I am certain many will see where I am coming from and now heading. I think he could live on that. As years passed he made money via his Shop, Matches, Green Keeping, etc etc so was able to maintain the £1 per day charge up into the 20th Century.
Nevertheless it was a liveable fee.
 

[Scott Warren]

I was of the impression that Ulrich meant he was not a player/designer in so much as a person who made his name as a player and then parlayed that into a design career, leveraging his fame and popularity as a golfer.

What I took Ulrich's post to mean was that Old Tom was a master of so many trades that calling him a "player/designer" overlooked a number of his talents and gifts to the game and didn't really reflect the full story.

From your reaction in the first instance, Melvyn, I didn't get the impression you understood that. It seems that several others were in the same boat.

It's not a case of trying to drive you from the site, I think you would get traction with a lot more people on here if you wrote more clearly. Quite often your posts simply don't make a lot of sense.

Ulrich posted:

I do not see OTM as a player turned designer. He was Caddie, Keeper of the Green, ballmaker and filled many other roles as well - playing and designing courses were just two facets of his complete golfing personality.

The first player turned designer, who achieved world class status in both areas, was probably James Braid.

You replied:

Ulrich

I was not aware that OTM was not a player. He was a Professional Golfer which I believe is the same title Jack played under. All those Great Matches he played with Willie Park had nothing to so with playing golf but Green Keeping?

Sorry, Ulrich but we disagree on this point, I think you picked a guy who was far more than just a Caddie, Green Keeper, Player, Professional, Designer etc, but for all that he was very much a player.

Melvyn

Ulrich then clarified what he meant:

OTM won four Opens, so nobody would accuse him of not having been a player

But a "player turned designer" as I understand it in the context of this thread would be someone, who had two careers: first he made his living as a player and then as a course architect. OTM did not have two careers, he was a "golf professional" at a time, when that could mean any of playing, caddying, greenkeeping, making balls/clubs, teaching golf, designing courses, running club affairs etc. For one thing, designing courses could hardly be seen as a career in most of OTM's life, it just didn't pay enough.

Willie Park Jr. is a good argument, but I would consider him a clubmaker in his first career. Maybe I'm wrong about Braid as well, maybe he did things I don't know about. But he strikes me as the first guy with those two careers: playing and designing. Is he known for anything else in golf? Well, he did jump-start the PGA, so maybe I should count that as his second career instead of golf architecture.

And you still didn't appear to understandm, saying:

OTM £1 per day rates for design seems to say he was in that business, but as I do not want to make an Ass of myself I will just say again I do not agree with you.

Melvyn

PS MD I was actually responding to Ulrich statement 'I do not see OTM as a player turned designer' But let your hate for me shine through, show us all that you have yet to mature. I may well be an ass IYO but you are far worse in mine, you are the type of person who shoots first and asks questions later  - you would I suspect be the type of person who would be responsible for friendly fire.

It seems everyone but you understands what he meant, but you plough on regardless accusing people of trying to drive you from the site. Open your eyes and read before you reply, and if in doubt seek clarification.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Scott

I bow to your full understand of what we all mean.

Melvyn

[John Mayhugh]

John, like Michael it’s the same old attitude of having a go at Melvyn at any opportunity in the hope of driving me from this site.

I don't understand what this means.  Are you saying this is something that I am doing?  If so, please explain how you arrived at that conclusion. If you mean something else, what?

[PCCraig]

It's too bad what was becoming an interesting thread on Jack's design legacy has become overshadowed by yet another Old Tom Morris theme.

Ulrich made a great point saying that Jack was the first "player / architect" of the many we see today in its present form and which opened the door for Palmer, Player, C&C, Tiger, etc... to have design firms and which has a huge impact on the game. Old Tom Morris designed golf courses, but the "player / architect" theme was clearly different.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

What is your view on who should be credited with the design of a course? You mentioned Jack approves every plan, but that clearly is not designing the course, Clouding the issue is perhaps beneficial for Design House but it leaves the design unsigned and a source of contention in perhaps years to come.

The bottom line is if Jack was not responsible  (in person) for the routing then no credit can be placed upon his shoulders, even if he hold the 100% title to the Design House. I understand the team attitude but then I feel the design needs to be accredited to an individual, who actually did the work.


We are talking about Design, design intent so surely the public should be kept advised who was actually responsible. It may well be a Jack Nichlaus Course but was it his design?

This puts the question of this whole topic in question – what if Jack has done no designs in years, just signed them off, then his legacy would be hard to attribute to anyone knowing that he did indeed have a limited design input for what appears might be half his design life.

Would I as a potential client be happy to be fobbed off with someone else designing my course,  being content that Jack signed it off, Hell no I would not, you pays your money for a Jack Nichlaus design so you should get one otherwise Jack will leave very little of himself behind for future generations.

Don’t the paying golfing public has a right to know who the designer was/is?

Melvyn

[Lester George]

I agree somewhat with Jim Nugent. 

I would love to see him route a course, take it through preliminary design with a client, do the construction drawings, make changes to the plans based on environmental constraints, take it ALL the wat through construction and GROW-IN. 

Then we would know how to gage his architectural ability.

Lester

[Bill_McBride]

I agree somewhat with Jim Nugent. 

I would love to see him route a course, take it through preliminary design with a client, do the construction drawings, make changes to the plans based on environmental constraints, take it ALL the wat through construction and GROW-IN. 

Then we would know how to gage his architectural ability.

Lester

Is Jack Nicklaus an ASGCA member?  If so, aren't there specific requirements for actually designing courses?  Just curious.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()