The thin line between “wild and fun” to “crazy and stupid” greens?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Oh, I understood it was a critique of JN as a gca!  I still wonder how Mike N knows that?

Do you think I am wrong?

Tom has indicated that Jack Nicklaus used to criticize him on site for taking too much time to make a decision about something.
Tom wrote that Jack is very efficient with his time because of his busy nature.

With that information I find it hard to believe that Jack ponders over a subtle break and all the different angles one would encounter this break.  The design of a green is a work of art and engineering - Jack Nicklaus works as neither an artist or an engineer - his responsibility is as a player, marketer and a manager.

Cheers

[Greg Tallman]

Pat,

Another interesting part of your comparison of Lost Dunes and Harbor Shores is that the two greens in question were probably built by the same guy ... Jerame Miller, who shaped all the greens at Lost Dunes back when he worked for Landscapes Unlimited, and who is now an associate and shaper for Nicklaus Design.  So while I am sure that Jack has never been to Lost Dunes, I suspect the idea to do a similar green probably came from Jerame.

He is a very talented guy, but when he is reporting to different guys you may well see different results.

And here I thought Jerame was a loose cannon capable of... well... anything.  The only shaper who is as entertaining to watch work as his creation is fun to play. We were going soooo well up to the point I gave him a few beers!

[Greg Tallman]

Tom Doak - Would be interested to hear where you think #17 at Pete Dye Club falls in this scale.

My guess is you feel it is fine though wildly out of character with the rest of the design and thus a but much in its current setting.

[Tom_Doak]

Greg,

That green on Pete Dye GC was still in the dirt the last time I was in W Va, with only the front nine open.

I was told Mr LaRosa the owner suggested to Pete he should make it the smallest green in the world, so he went the other way instead.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg,

That green on Pete Dye GC was still in the dirt the last time I was in W Va, with only the front nine open.

I was told Mr LaRosa the owner suggested to Pete he should make it the smallest green in the world, so he went the other way instead.

Local legend has it that it was built by LaRosa and Dye decided to keep it rather than continue to fight the guy.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike N,

I didn't say you were wrong, I asked how you knew that.

Still I always have wondered whenever I have seen Tour Pros critique designs, again from the "what if I miss it here" perspective.  What percentage of shots end up in an exact location when a pin is in a certain location? Certainly one out of every 6 or 7 due to pin rotation, and then perhaps 1% max of any given shots in a day.  If a course plays 200 rounds a day, 7 days a week, that is a max of 0.0015% chance of any given "deeply thought out" chip ever happening, and in reality, its probably more like 0.0000001%.

My point is, I suspect JN and others know this and believe that creating random, gently rolling slopes, or long consistent slopes that may give a variety of ball positions just off the green a similar challenge is probably more practical than thinking you are really doing something great by obsessing over a chip shot to one position from one position.  That really strikes me as playing to this crowd more than something that really happens on a regular basis in the field with most gca.

[Tom_Doak]

Can you clarify that last statement Jeff?  Are you calling me a liar, or just saying you think I am wasting my time?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ops – Duck Guys looks likes the Sh#T is about to hit the fan or we are about to see the Fight at The Non Ok Corral Castle Course with Doc Doaks and Jeff Watt.

Melvyn 

[Sean Leary]

I played Tetherow today and I felt that there some greens that were over the top, but most were wild and fun. A lot of the green contours there were not visable from the fairways which was interesting for a 1st time play.

[Chris Buie]

Here is another Tot Hill green for your consideration.

[Mac Plumart]

HUH?!?!?   

How does a green like that not make for goofy golf? 

[Wade Schueneman]

The fine line is this:

When you de-green a putt, or three putt repeatedly, its fun. 

When I de-green a put , or three putt repeatedly, its crazy.

That sounds about right!

My 2 cents is that I have almost never found a green too wild.  I get that the situation at the 18th at Olympic many years ago was just stupid, but putting that aside, I have no problem with putts from certain portions of a green almost manditorily resulting in a 10+ foot comebacker.  The way I see it, if I am playing the Road hole, I know that if I stick one in the road bunker I am going to have to play one sideways, then chip on, and then try to salvage a bogey.  As long as there is some general rhyme or reason to a green I feel that I should be able to identify the danger zones and then play away from them if I do not want to flirt with disaster.  If we cannot accept a probable 3 putt for then why do we accept water hazards?

Having said that, I prefer greens that generally offer an alternative (but risky) route for the player that really wants to leave a 4-5 foot next putt.

[Mark_Fine]

What was the logic behind the greens at The Old Course?  Were shot values being assessed when they were laid out?  My answer is yes to the second question, but not to the extend some might think.   

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mark

What was the logic behind the greens at The Old Course?  Were shot values being assessed when they were laid out?  My answer is yes to the second question, but not to the extend some might think.
 
I trust you are not referring to TOC, if you are could you be so kind as to explain ‘Shot Values‘ to the likes of Allan Robertson and Old Tom.

Shot values are just another way of trying to define golf, to categorise it in the hope of make the unthinking THINK  - its as useful as a Fart in a Spacesuit and serves just as much purpose too. It falls into the waste of time crap that includes distance aided etc. – Tell me why do golfers always underrate their potential and ability believing that they need outside assistance to weigh up the course staring you right there in the face.

Come on Guys have a little faith in your own abilities

Melvyn

[Mark_Fine]

Melvyn and Kelly,
The point of my post was that I DON'T think Allan and Old Tom were worrying about things like chipping positions and so forth and the impact of the wild contour of the greens.  The only "shot values" they might have had in mind were related to things we don't discuss here. 

Regarding "golf course raters"; I've never met a golfer who was not a golf course rater.  Every golfer "rates" the golf courses they play as does every green committee I've ever dealt with.  As an architect, you deal with it and you edcucate and I've found most open minded people come around.
Mark 
 

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Fan clubs exist on GCA - nothing wrong with that and you certainly benefit from them.

My point was that if Nicklaus had his name tied to the 5th at Old Macdonald the reaction from quite a few people would be far different.

Certain people get the benefit of the doubt -- and others don't.

To say otherwise -- is not being really fair given the preferences stated here many times.

One other thing -- when Jack has a 7,400 yard course -- the usual bitching and moaning occurs from people who should not be anywhere near the tip tees. These folks want it both ways -- play the tips and then piss in their shorts when they dont' have sufficient game to handle the requirements involved.

[Bart Bradley]

Tom D:

Fan clubs exist on GCA - nothing wrong with that and you certainly benefit from them.

My point was that if Nicklaus had his name tied to the 5th at Old Macdonald the reaction from quite a few people would be far different.

Matt:

I don't think your statement is quite fair.  There is little doubt in my mind that Jack Nicklaus' design work and Doak's design work would not be exact replicas..the same could be said for any two designers.  I think that it is quite possible that even subtle differences lead to different opinions and that the "name" on the work is not the only difference.

I will not deny, in any way, that bias and preconceived notions affect opinion....but the 5th green at Old Macdonald is good design, no matter whose name is on it and I believe many on GCA would praise it as such.

Bart

[Matt_Ward]

Bart:

There's nothing unfair about what I said.

There are people on this site with clear preferences and they do give the benefit of the doubt to certain people. Unfortunately, their minds are quite unwilling to give credit to others who do rather similar type work.

Bart, with all due respect, don't be so naive. Preferences for architects exists here. Jack's work has often been panned by people here who have only played a smidgeon of what he has done -- many of his more recent efforts are extremely well done in my mind.

Bart, let me just say this -- blindfold a number of GCA people and don't tell them who did the design. Then float a name by them -- if it's someone they like they will love it -- float another name and they will say it's excessive. It happens more than you care to admit.

Just my opinion.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kelly

Raters, the scourge of the modern game, the destroyers of reputation and worst still the purveyors of disinformation. Unsung heroes, my God Kelly, I trust you jest or at the very least pretending to pull my plonker (excuse my English).

Mark
 
Yes we may all have an opinion but they are generated by our ability to face each and every course we play. They come from our hearts and not from a list designed to judge results from the lowest common denominator – no proportional representation thank you. That’s the first step to anarchy or surrendering our hard fought Rights.

MHO is that producing a List of top courses is yet another modern practice that has little to do with golf, certainly nothing to do with GCA and is purely a method of attracting people attention to obtain money. I understand the financiers and magazines pushing them as it sells their products but why Ran  or GCA.com tolerate them is out of order as they have no merit in any GCA debate or discussion.    

Again it’s this amalgamation of peripheral crap that is drowning the game – Shot values, distance aids, rating lists. Whatever happened to a game called golf, that simple walking and thinking game we all loved so much that we decided to play it throughout our lives. Have we all become that shallow, just like those modern bunkers that we are happy to see the game weakened by the greed of money and the laziness of MAN.

Melvyn

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

All of your posts about the bias on this board are b.s. on the order of Fox News.  They don't mean squat unless you are providing SPECIFIC examples of a green Jack Nicklaus built that would be beloved if Bill Coore or I built it, but is unfairly panned because it's Jack's ... Or, a green that I have built which is over the top, but gets a pass.  So far all you have come up with is a green of mine THAT YOU THINK IS GOOD, which other unspecified people would not like if it was Jack's.  Which is total speculation and bullshit.

So have you got any specific examples for us of great Jack Nicklaus greens that have been unfairly panned?

I also disagree on your last point to me.  I think I can decide whether a certain green is appropriate for a certain length of hole, even if I don't play from the 7400 yard tees.  The funny part of your argument is that it implies short jitters would complain loudest about a severe green on a long approach shot, when in my experience, it is the long jitters who complain that is unfair.

[Greg Tallman]

Matt:

All of your posts about the bias on this board are b.s. on the order of Fox News.  They don't mean squat unless you are providing SPECIFIC examples of a green Jack Nicklaus built that would be beloved if Bill Coore or I built it, but is unfairly panned because it's Jack's ... Or, a green that I have built which is over the top, but gets a pass.  So far all you have come up with is a green of mine THAT YOU THINK IS GOOD, which other unspecified people would not like if it was Jack's.  Which is total speculation and bullshit.

So have you got any specific examples for us of great Jack Nicklaus greens that have been unfairly panned?

I also disagree on your last point to me.  I think I can decide whether a certain green is appropriate for a certain length of hole, even if I don't play from the 7400 yard tees.  The funny part of your argument is that it implies short jitters would complain loudest about a severe green on a long approach shot, when in my experience, it is the long jitters who complain that is unfair.

Tom, With all due respect, if you do not believe there is some validity to what is being stated then I fear you are not being completely objective. It happens in all professions and all walks of life, including golf architecture. It's "his thing" but if the other guy tries it... it's stupid. Pretty simple really. Because it is Jack I feel each side gets a little more testy than need be. Just my opinion.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kelly

Great, am I relieved - on both counts 

Melvyn

[Michael Dugger]

I played Tetherow today and I felt that there some greens that were over the top, but most were wild and fun. A lot of the green contours there were not visable from the fairways which was interesting for a 1st time play.

I concur completely. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Wake up good man.

BS

Tom, there are groupies on this site. If you don't think so then you are in major league denial. In the time I have posted on GCA -- in the event you may have missed them -- I have noted a variety of courses by others who get less free pr here than others.

Red Ledges in UT is a first rate design. I've played more than 75 Nicklaus courses and I can see the details that Jack's team did there.
Jack gets panned there because people have a bug up their butt on his work -- likely tied to the fact that they bite off more than they can chew regarding the demands faced when heading to the tip tees. If I took someone out to Red Ledges blindfolded and then took them to any of the greens there and they never knew who designed the course -- then I announced the name -- and if it is someone on their preferred listing they would be gushing about its magnificence.

Tom, you have your own fan club here. People give YOU the benefit of the doubt -- ditto for C&C. Not everything you folks do is home run type stuff. Ditto on the Nicklaus side -- not everything Jack does is half ass or worse.Sorry to say otherwise but when people start thinking that preferences / biases don't exist then you my friend are in serious denial.

The issue is not whether you can decide such matters on the appropriateness of a specific green -- but whether others can do at the same level. Most cannot. Tom, in my experience, short hitters often bitch and moan about length (lack thereof). Sure you can find long hitters who complain -- but given the length element they have far less club to hit into such targets and the criticism is usually all wet.

The folks who play many Nicklaus courses generally size up the layouts by taking on more course than their games can provide. Therefore they throw the course under the bus.

[Michael Dugger]

Ward.....your time has past, my brother.

You have run out of catch phrases to drop.  You no longer have any new takes to offer.  Your mindless, opinionated banter has drug your reputation right into the catch basin.

My good friends Strunk & White think that broad generalizations are no way to make a compelling argument.  I happen to agree.

There is nothing more absurd than thinking you have your finger on the pulse of gca.com.

So, please just go ahead and start refraining from making any comments resembling a "state of the gca.com nation" because you are far too out of touch with sanity to be trusted with the written word any longer.

Might I suggest a career change?  You would do fine work as a lobbyist, or perhaps working on Sarah Palin's campaign...