News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


golfarc

Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2002, 07:17:45 AM »

Has anyone stopped to think that the underlying motive in Jacks argument was that since he says the courses are obsolete, he should be the one to renovate.  By making his case he automatically places himself in the middle of the discussion of who should be the one to bring these courses into the modern standard.  Its all marketing boys.  And Jack is one of the best self promoters in the world.  I only hope they never let him touch any of the sandbelt courses, as restoration/renovation is not his forte.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rich Goodale (Guest)

Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2002, 07:24:36 AM »
golfarc

So what is Jack's forte (vis a vis GCA)?

PS--this is a slow fat hanging one lobbed underhand right over the middle......
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

golfarc

Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2002, 07:31:19 AM »

Rich,

Jacks forte is playing golf.  Although some of his earlier designs (those he collaborated on with legitimate golf architects) are fair and interesting, most of his stuff during the late eighties to late nineties is not good.  He does convince people that he can sell real estate, and probably does.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Craig Van Egmond

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2002, 08:10:07 AM »

Golfarc,

            I don't know who Jack has doing the architecture work for him now, but the TPC at Snoqualmie out here in the Seattle area is a darn good course.  Its not a course where you need Jack's game to play well, it requires draws, fades, allows for bump and run etc and some excellent bunker work.

I think Bob Cupp and Jay Moorish were responsible for a lot of the severe Nicklaus designs in the 80's when they worked for him.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #29 on: February 01, 2002, 08:47:32 AM »
golfarc,
        Jack Nicklaus is devoted to the game of golf, and his concerns regarding the encroachment of technology upon the great classic golf courses in the Australian sandbelt & the world in general are most likely not a plea for attracting renovation contracts. Nicklaus has been speaking for at least a decade on the problems of golf ball technology, and i honestly believe this is out of a real desire to maintain the integrity of the sport, as well as the great architectural works of the past. in fact, i would probably argue that due to his belief that ball technology should be rolled back to distances of an earlier era, he may very well not believe that the classic courses should be renovated. by stating that technology is on the verge (or has already) of making many fine golf courses obsolete, Nicklaus, call me naive, is pointing out that technology is the culprit, and i think his past stance on this issue reflects this belief.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

golfarc

Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #30 on: February 01, 2002, 03:02:31 PM »

TKearns,

I couldn't agree with you more.  no one has spoken so frequently on technology and its affect on the game more than Jack.  And, certainly he has an unselfish interest in preserving the game.  

But I will also point out, and maybe its coincidence, that Jack really started speaking of the effcts of technology as his career  was winding down.  As his game became less competetive and as his records will be the ones erased by people playing a game vastly different than he did.  I mention this not because I think Jack has anything less than virtuous motives, however, I recall a letter Bobby Jones once wrote about the perils of the "new" steel shafts and the possible negative impact they would have on the game.  

In short, all generations have reason to look back on the game as they played it.  My main point is this,  if Jack wants to lead the charge against ball flight distances and new technology thats fine, just don't stand there on the other side of the fence and receive the benefit of stating courses are going to be obsolete, and therefore I am here to help you renovate them.....
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #31 on: February 01, 2002, 03:26:32 PM »
I think you should all read again what Nicklaus said. His point is distance needs to be controlled and even rolled back 10% and the simple and inexpensive way to do that is with the ball.

He's been saying this for years now, well over a decade! Hello, I guess noone was listening, right? They still aren't listening and things happen like Augusta gets 300 yds tacked onto it this year. Nicklaus isn't saying he agrees with this, he's saying it's inevitable if they don't wake up some damn day and get a grip on the advances in distance--and his recommendation is do it with the ball!

How much redesign has Nicklaus done anyhow--some to #13 ANGC a while ago, but how much redesign does his company do?

He's saying do something about distance through the ball and these championship courses will be fine, he even said there are thousands of them if distance can be controlled.

And how about these tour players like Michael Campbell keeping stats and remarking how much less club he's hitting into the sandbelt courses compared to what he was a few years ago---same as Nicklaus is saying.

His message in that article is clear to me---they need to control distance and the ball is the way to do it--not with redesign and lenghtening courses!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Daley

Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2002, 02:47:18 AM »
TE Paul:

Excellent to get your input, and it is useful to read an
unbiased view from afar. Your take on the thread does help clarify what Jack is saying without the interference of "emotional baggage" that we harbour. :o

I do like your comments about the old one-two: Nicklaus and Woods championing the cause of reigning in the ball. But is the cause a tricky thing for Woods to fully get his weight behind? Are "juicy" contracts in place preventing his constant referral to the problem, or is it a case that with a maniacal desire for greatness he can really only commit to winning at all costs? Tiger seems a fairly sincere kind of guy, why isn't he more audible?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #33 on: February 02, 2002, 03:38:16 AM »
I can't see Tiger campaigning for a rollback on the ball, for two reasons:

1) Tiger is paid big bucks to play the Nike Tour Accuracy TW, and to come out in public and say that the ball should be curtailed would be detrimental to his relationship with Nike (although they proabably need him more than he needs them!).

2) Tiger is the clear number one player in the world now.  The way the game is now is working for him.  If you're on a good wicket, why try to change it?  I imagine he'd be happy to keep playing cookie-cutter courses forever while he is winning.

All the other top players are contracted out, Mickleson, Love, Garcia and Co. to Titleist; Duval and Co. to Nike; and the list goes on.  How can they be expected to make a stand when they are on a ballmakers payroll?  Some of these guys must be in a bind.

Tom Paul,

I second what Paul Daley says.  When our great courses are involved, we tend to be rather precious.  

It's what's between the lines that worries me though.  Maybe I am just paranoid!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #34 on: February 02, 2002, 03:41:34 AM »
BTW, my dad said to me today (he's not a golfer):

"Why don't they go back to gutty perch balls, forged blades with hickory shafts and persimmon woods?  Wouldn't that be more fun?  Nothing would ever be obsolete".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #35 on: February 02, 2002, 06:16:00 AM »
Thanks RJ and Chris, I do think it's clear what Nicklaus is saying! It's sort of needless to speculate why he's saying it! Would it be because he would like to see something done to protect his career records? Personally, I doubt it, but even if that was the reason, who cares, if it helps a cause?

Nicklaus's overall point is there is no real reason NOT to strive to keep the "playing fields" level even through the eras as much as possible. If the regulatory bodies don't do that somehow they are going to get things to the point that golf architecture will need to be altered and redesigned to accomodate distance and that's never a good thing! It's expensive and I think even in Jack's mind it's sort of tragic for the game itself and certainly its "wonderful championship courses", as he said!

Tiger Woods is another thing entirely and I think it would be more than worthwhile for the regulatory bodies to explore very carefully where this young man is coming from!

I've said this a number of times on here but it's my strong supposition that Woods's ultimate motivation is coming from a place you would not believe and most have not realized and explored properly.

The young man knows how good he is and can be and his desire is not to be considered the best of his era but the best of all-time--the greatest golfer in the history of the game, in fact! He's too smart a young man to say that directly or blatantly but if you observe him carefully it doesn't seem hard to tell that this is his motivation! And it's not an idle motivation, it's one that burns as bright as a meteor.

He can never acheive that goal (which he understands is a bit of a perception given how things have changed in equipment and architecture) to be considered the best ever if he can't overcome in the minds of golf's world those that came before him first!! This is really important. And that includes Jack and even more so the elusive Bob Jones!

Woods knows this will be hard for him to do if his era (and him) are only considered "equipment aided"! Woods would like a rollback, I believe, to "level the playing field" between his era and those of the past! If you listen carefully he's said this before but very subtlely. It's the reason he really got upset when the USGA changed the par on #2 Pebble. He has almost never said a word about setup before, but that instance was significant, in my opinion!

Would he be able to do this with the power of his equipment company possibly wanting to go the other way? Hard to say,  but you might be surprised what a man of his desire could get if he wanted it enough which I think he does--at least a competition ball for his level, in my opinion!

The USGA (and the R&A) should very much and very carefully explore this avenue and this possibility with a man like Woods and even in conjunction with Jack Nicklaus. Jack seems to know that Woods will break his records, he sure has predicted it enough--so to Jack it's a given! But Woods knows he has to take care of Nicklaus and Jones and the others who came before him before he continues on and sets some awesome career record of his own that noone may ever exceed!

I don't know him at all but I do know others who do and they do concur in this. At the very least the regulatory bodies should explore it too in any effort to do something about distance increases as Woods and Nicklaus would be one helluva one/two punch to help the effort.

Woods doesn't care if the ball is rolled back to a limit where even he might not exceed 280! He knows he will beat everyone anyway.

There is something I think we should all understand about golfers like Nicklaus and Woods. They don't really have to give themselves pep talks to convince themselves they can beat anyone! They don't need sports psychologists--never did! To them there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! They absolutely know they're better! There's no doubt in their minds they can win! And My God does that attitude help!!

It's interesting how Nicklaus did it throughout his career. He had enormous talent but he was actually quite a conservative course manager and to him it was as much a numbers game as anything else!

With Woods, to this point in his career, there's obviously some of that numbers game but there is far more "creating the moment", and at any particular time than I've ever seen in golf! It seem to happen endlessly--it's almost spooky, odd fate or destiny!

The regulatory bodies should look into this very carefully--it could really help them get what they all want!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Justin_Ryan

Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2002, 02:21:12 AM »
John Daly certainly doesn't appear to believe that Royal Melbourne will rendered obsolete any day soon, judging by the following comments

"It doesn't matter how good I hit it around here, I'm not going to score in the 60s"
"When you can't make birdie on them par fives, it makes it very difficult to score.  And I'm hitting five and six irons into a lot of the par fours, which is different golf for me."
"I could try and hit driver around here and shoot 90"
And my favourite is "In the States I'm usually hitting lob wedges, sand-wedges, or at most, an eight iron into the par fours."

I wonder if he will have to pay his caddy extra for cleaning the extra clubs in his bag that he usually doesn't use.

He should really consider himself lucky, with the conditions over the week being relatively benign.  If the hot weather and northerly winds had hit, as they often do this time of year, and dried the course and greens out, he would have been having fits.

It is just a shame that he wasn't a bit more enthusiastic about the challenges the course posed and the demands of the greens.  It would seem that he has played on nothing but sponge like greens since winning the Open Championship in 1995, given his comments that he was struggling to get it within 30 or 40 feet on the sloping greens using the mid-irons he had obviously forgotten how to use.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #37 on: February 03, 2002, 02:57:31 AM »
John Daly didn't give himself the best chance to play well this week.

If he were really serious about putting in his best performance, he would have been at RMGC practising on Tuesday, rather than mucking around at Capital with his mate Lloyd Williams who only wants his gambling money anyway.  His only practise for the tournament was the pro-am, not exactly the kid of event where you hone your game for the next day.

He'd only had one look at the course before he played Thursday, and when asked about whether his caddy had spent time at RM working out a strategy, he replied that the caddy was probably at Crown Casino instead.

If he bothers to come all the way out to Australia, he should ensure that he gives himself the best chance to win.  I don't think his mind was totally on the golf this week.  A shame.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Daley

Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #38 on: February 03, 2002, 03:01:05 AM »
Thanks Justin,

I also took note of Wild Thing's comments, and thought to myself ... how very interesting. You are right about him getting off lightly with being befuddled about the course; had the Composite Course been in a venomous mood, this two-time major winner with his power could have been staring down the barrell of 85.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #39 on: February 03, 2002, 06:12:56 AM »
Well then forget about what I said about Daly in comparison to Els on the Royal Melbourne topic.

If Daly is up to his old tricks then that explains why he said that he couldn't figure out how to play RM although he was not playing badly. I thought it was a reflection on a good player who was giving a good course and the tournament his best shot in every way--I guess not.

Scotches my point about the complexity of RM to some degree too, at least in an accurate comparison of Els and Daly as golfers, unfortunately!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Justin_Ryan

Re: Sandbelt courses near obsolete: Nicklaus
« Reply #40 on: February 03, 2002, 01:44:43 PM »
I wouldn't be sure that Daly's preparation for this tournament was any different to any other tournament he enters.  The problem this time around though was that instead of encountering the usual one dimensional course with soft greens where hit gets his yardage and hits straight at the flag he found something entirely different.  To his credit he did eagle his last hole on Friday to make the cut, so the guy really was trying.  Bryce Molder played as well and missed the cut easily, so I suspect part of the problem may be the lack of exposure of American players to firmer sloping greens.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »