Good thing Mr Doak

[Keith OHalloran]

On a different thread, there was a quote that said ( and I paraphrase) 'good thing that Mr. Doak did not let Mr. Nicklaus run the greens at Sebnack'... The obvious impression is that Sebonack would not have been as good if Doak didn't do the  greens. Is that true? Why? Which hole would be worse with a "Jack" green?

[Mac Plumart]

I think I noticed a few greens that were done by Jack out there.  17 feels/looks like a green I'd see at Dismal.

[Keith OHalloran]

Example? Were those holes bad?  Could Doak have made them better? How?

[Greg Tallman]

Who is responsible for the current 14th?

I suspect we will not get an answer here.

[Ronald Montesano]

Paraphrase all you want, Keith! I don't have the Sebonack book with me, but what I recall Jack saying at some juncture was that Tom had taught him a fair bit about internal contouring of greens.

A quote from Brad Klein found here (http://www.golfweek.com/news/2011/sep/22/raters-notebook-dismal-river-mullen-neb/?print)

Jack Nicklaus, then in the middle of working with Tom Doak on Sebonack Golf Club in Southampton, N.Y., abandoned his usual high-modernist design style at Dismal River and adopted with a vengeance a ground-hugging routing that used the existing contours.

And the huge work from Ron Whitter, found here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HFI/is_12_56/ai_n27865101/?tag=content;col1)

Doak and Nicklaus say they learned much from one another during the experience. For Doak, it was mostly affirmation that he wasn't that far apart in strategic ideas from Jack. Meanwhile, Jack confirmed that he'd gotten more quirky in his green contours, such as The Concession, his new club in Sarasota, Fla.

"I like imperfections in greens," he says. "I just didn't know how to get them done. That's one thing I've learned from Tom, how to do that."

[Mark Saltzman]

Who is responsible for the current 14th?

I suspect we will not get an answer here.

I think  it's neither of them.

[Keith OHalloran]

Thanks Ron, can you interpret that as it relates to the course as we know it?

[Mac Plumart]

Example? Were those holes bad?  Could Doak have made them better? How?

Better?  That is a matter of perspective/taste.  I thought 17 at Sebonack was great (and for the record I don't know if it was Jack or Tom or Jim or Garrett or Mr. Pascucci who did the green...it simply reminds me of Dismal River greens A LOT).

If memory serves me correctly 15 had a similiar feel to 17 as well...but I might be mis-remembering the 15th green.

Regardless, the difference in the greens that I'd pick up on are how the contours of the green interact with the surroundings.  For example, the greens that I know Tom did and/or his RGD team (on Sebonack and other courses) are that if you look at the hills, landscapes, valleys, and the like surrounding the green the flow together rather than seperately.  Specifically, high points off the green (where water might run off of) flow in river/creek like fasion into valleys on the green and naturally blend into other valleys and/or hills.  You would never see abrupt changes that disturb the natural flow of water or wind patterns.

UGH!  I think I am doing an awful job of explaining what I am trying to say...but I hope I am getting the gist across.

On some non-Doak/RGD greens, I see hills where valleys should be and vice-versa.  These inverted features would never be seen in nature.  Now, that is not saying they don't make for interesting putts and/or approach shots.  In fact, many do...but they look out of place.

Again, I might not be communicating effectively on this..apologies.

[Mac Plumart]

Who is responsible for the current 14th?

I suspect we will not get an answer here.

I think  it's neither of them.

I believe you are correct.

[Mac Plumart]

16 didn't feel like a RGD/Doak green or a Nicklaus green to me either.

[Ronald Montesano]

Mac...fine job. I understood exactly as you explained it. They say the same thing about DRoss' work at The Orchards in MA.

Keith...I haven't played nor walked Sebonack, so I only know what I read. Given two disparate design philosophies, that they came together and gave us Sebonack, might be the miracle when all is played out. In western New York, we have our Harries greens (boring, big sweeping breaks) and our Travis greens (remarkable internal contours) and everything in between. I imagine that we would have a similar discrepancy between pure Jack and pure Tom greens.

[Keith OHalloran]

Ron,
Can yo tell me what is an entirely Doak Green and what's an entirely Nicklaus green? I played Sebonack  and the caddie asked me if I could tell who did what green, and I couldnt. I am not as learned as most here, but I would like to be taught.

[Mac Plumart]

Well...Keith...I'd like to be taught as well.

In addition to your question, can we add one more?  Is it fair to call them Doak greens or RGD greens?  Does Tom "do" all the greens or does his team do some of them?  Or is there a single person who they lean on for their green work?  Is/was Jim involved?  If so, how much? 

If we get a non-singular answer, could that explain the difference within "Doak" greens?  Like say, 7 at Ballyneal vs. 8 at Ballyneal?

Great thread!!! 

Oops...I initially asked if we could ask one more question and then I added about 10.  Sorry, but I'm curious.

[Keith OHalloran]

Mac,
 I hav not been to Ballyneal, can you speak to the difference between the 7 th and 8th green?

[Mac Plumart]

I don't think I can describe them very well.  But I think you can see them in pictures better.



7 at Ballyneal...pretty simple.  People call it the "E" green, cause it looks like an "E".  Go figure!!





and 8.  People call it...well, I don't think I can say what they call it here!!   

[Ronald Montesano]

In the Whitten piece, the author mentioned that Jim Urbina did the shaping (which I presume referred to the greens and other precise elements of the course.)

My point was meant to be that the greens were a combined effort of RGD and JN at worst, and a nearly-complete effort by RGD at best. I believe, from my playing and research experiences, that RGD does a very creative job with greens. I don't know that a solo JN effort would have been as bountiful.

[Carl Rogers]

Without an intimate knowledge of the hour by hour, blow by blow account how can one really know what went on?  Taking sides and pointing fingers is not a good idea.  You can take a less judgemental and a more observational attitude.

Why not just concentrate on the result?? ... Is it possible that certain green complexes just lent themselves to certain on the ground responses?

[Ronald Montesano]

Absolutely, Carl. One of the potential results of Sebonack was that one architect would have been overruled on many important decisions by the other, resulting in a JN signature course, rather than a combined effort. If TD had let the JN firm run roughshod over the project, chances are excellent that JN would not have learned what he did about the construction of greens (which he hopefully continues to incorporate in new projects.)

If my comments are viewed as disparaging, the light in which I hope they are taken is that the Sebonack greens, under the watch of JN alone, would have been serviceable, but they would not have been what (nor where) they are today.

[Mac Plumart]

You can take a less judgemental and a more observational attitude.


Carl...absolutely.  That is what I try to do all the time.  Through this process, I have found my personal preferences and can seek out courses that fit these preferences.

Related to this thread, I found playing Sebonack fascinating and the greens were a big part of that fascination.  There are cleary seperate styles of greens and it was fun to see that and think about it.  This thread just builds on that interesting aspect of the course.

There are a few comments that specifically say and/or allude to Tom Doak doing "better" greens than Jack.  I don't know if I agree 100% with that...and I tried to point that out.  Perhaps it is different tastes and preferences that drive that fact.  I love Jack's greens at Dismal.  I loved 17 at Sebonack (if, in fact, that turns out to be a Jack green this bolsters my point that Jack in no slouch).  

Also, I think that Sebonack is a great example of taking the thrilling golf, that is stereotypical Jack Nicklaus, from tee to green...combining it with Doak/RGD routings...great land for golf...great greens...in a historic golfing region...and coming up with a gem.

That is one of the fun things about playing Sebonack...seeing all of this stuff come together in a very interesting/thrilling manner.  And any opportunity to talk about it, is a good thing in my book.

[Ronald Montesano]

Didn't Dismal open after Sebonack? If so, that would seem to confirm the point about JN learning much about green construction from TD, JU and RGD.

[Mac Plumart]

Yes, I think that is correct.  And, yes, I think that is the general sentiment.

[Keith OHalloran]

I think Dismal opened 3 months after Sebonack. Not sure if that is dispositive of much.

[Ronald Montesano]

If that is the case, then you are correct, sir (unless JN learned an awful lot, very early in the process.)

[Chris Johnston]

Didn't Dismal open after Sebonack? If so, that would seem to confirm the point about JN learning much about green construction from TD, JU and RGD.

RM - I'm not sure I would make that assertion.  Dismal redid (I recall) something like 9 greens a year after opening to soften them.  I wasn't here at the time but I've been told what was there was extreme, to the extreme.

Today, they are more playable and enjoyable, especially given wind.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

This is a interesting story. However none of the parties that know the facts or were privy to them have contributed. I will not start by telling half the story. It is clear that nothing said above me is on the right track or even close. We will see if one of the parties chimes in.