Tom Doak is obviously playing too much golf

[Sven Nilsen]

If Tom answered that question

"IF" he answered the question ? ?  ?
He was unequivocal and stated that the joint venture at Sebonack was a collaboration and NOT a project where each had separate "defined roles" as you claimed.

I think he'd say he considers every one of his projects to be a collaboration. 

Please spare us the lunacy.
In terms of the creative aspect, Tom is "THE" architect.
In terms of "collaboration Tom was referencing the respective roles of the team members, not the creative force behind the design.
Just admit you're wrong and move on with it.  It's not the first time and it won't be the last

These days, I would guess there a few past partners that he would not want to work with again, but that number is outweighed by the number of folks with who the collaborative process was a success.  Hence, I bet he'd buy into the idea that it depends on the people involved.
I'd disagree.
What does he have to gain ?
Why dilute your product and your brand ?

It appears that Tom did answer the question in his 2009 Feature Interview on this site.  Here's the quote:

"Most people seem to think golf architecture is a top-down business, that the big-name architect visualizes the whole thing on Day 1 and his staff just implements those ideas; or, if not that, then the lead associate is really doing all the design work when the principal doesn’t have time.  There are some firms that actually operate that way, but to me, the best work happens when you have several talented people on site, and a free flow of creative energy.  A lot of the reason for our success is just that I’ve been willing to staff every project with 3-4 guys, whereas most architects place one or two at the most."

[Patrick_Mucci]

It appears that Tom did answer the question in his 2009 Feature Interview on this site.

Sven,

You're embarrasing yourself because you're going from obtuse to just plain stupid.
Some call it denial because you can't face the truth that you're wrong, dead wrong, and Tom Doak himself told you that you were wrong.

Tom Doak, in a direct response, in reply # 31, stated that the work at Sebonack WAS a collaboration.

Here's the quote, read it carefully, because obviously, your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.

Sebonack WAS a collaboration

Now again, what part of "Sebonack WAS a collaboration" didn't you understand ?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven:

I'd appreciate it if you would take down the quote from Mr. Nicklaus.  
I addressed it at the time and don't need to go there again.  

Sebonack WAS a collaboration

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

As a master of calling people out for selective quotation, I'd appreciate it if you'd include the entire statement. 

You know the truth and you know why public statements are made the way they are.  Stop being disingenuous.

Collaborations work when the right people are involved.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

Who do you think more time together on site:

Doak and Nicklaus at Sebonack; or

MacKenzie and Jones at Augusta?


How would you be able to evaluate my answer ?

Do you have the logs ?
Sven

Why are you afraid to answer this question?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

As a master of calling people out for selective quotation, I'd appreciate it if you'd include the entire statement. 

The balance of the statement is irrelevant


You know the truth and you know why public statements are made the way they are. 

Oh, do you mean like Jones's and MacKenzie's public statements you referenced.

And did it ever dawn on you that I might know more than what's public ?


Stop being disingenuous.

I'm not being disingenuous.
I quoted Tom Doak's exact words refuting your claim that Sebonack wasn't a collaboration.
instead you claimed that it was a project where they each had separate defined roles.
Tom Doak corrected you and you look like a fool trying to contradict him.

If anyone is being disingenuous, obtuse and obstinate, it's you.

The fact is that I know more than you on this issue

Collaborations work when the right people are involved.

Not in the creative arena

The moment one party is less talented than the other, compromise will always produce an inferior product.

Based on your theory, if two is good, three would be better
And if three is better, four and more is best.

Hey, I know, design by committee will be the next trend according to you

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

Who do you think more time together on site:

Doak and Nicklaus at Sebonack; or

MacKenzie and Jones at Augusta?


How would you be able to evaluate my answer ?

Do you have the logs ?
Sven

Why are you afraid to answer this question?

I'm not afraid.

I'm smart enough to know that I don't have the logs and neither do you.

Any response you could offer would be pure speculation on your part, something you excel at.

[Sven Nilsen]

You're trying to have it both ways again.

Here's Tom's language, as quoted above:

"the best work happens when you have several talented people on site, and a free flow of creative energy."

Sure sounds likes he's talking about the creative process.

If you took your blinders off for a second, you'd go back and read my words from earlier in the thread:

"sebonack was less a collaboration than it was a project with defined roles."

I'm fine if you (and Tom) want to continue to use the word collaboration.  In reality, this project was more of a battle of ideas as opposed to the "free flow of creative energy."  If you want to continue to debate semantics, go ahead.  I see no need to as we both know that this project was not the same kind of "collaboration" that Tom has experienced with different players, and he said as much in the text that you neglected to quote.

My theory is that if the right people are involved, the result can be better than would be produced by any one participant alone.  Please stop trying to bastardize what I've said earlier in this thread and recrafting and assigning theories willy-nilly.  Its disingenous.

And did it ever occur to you that I might know more than has been said publically as well?  I might also know a bit more about the creative process than I've let on in this thread.  Let's just say I wasn't raised in a household where individual pursuits were the be-all-end-all.  Perhaps that's why I enjoy the camaraderie of golf more than the pursuit of a score, the game is supposed to be fun.  But I can appreciate how a person with your background would have a world view taken straight from the pages of Ayn Rand.

I'd love to see what could have been done at Sebonack if you could have talked Pascucci into dropping Nicklaus from the team.  

Sven

Homer:  Woo hoo!  We won!  We won!

Burns:  You mean, I won.

Apu:  But we were a team, sir.

Burns:  Oh, I'm afraid I've had one of my trademark changes of heart.  You see, teamwork only takes you so far.  Then, the truly evolved person makes that extra grab for personal glory.

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

Who do you think more time together on site:

Doak and Nicklaus at Sebonack; or

MacKenzie and Jones at Augusta?


How would you be able to evaluate my answer ?

Do you have the logs ?
Sven

Why are you afraid to answer this question?

I'm not afraid.

I'm smart enough to know that I don't have the logs and neither do you.

Any response you could offer would be pure speculation on your part, something you excel at.

Take an educated guess.  You have a rough ball park of how much time Mac and Jones were on site.  And if you know so much about the Sebonack project, you should have a good idea of what happened there as well.

Unless, of course, this is the first time that you don't want to offer an opinion on something.

[Sven Nilsen]

I'll give you a hint, Jack spent more than a day but less than two weeks on site.

[Tom_Doak]

I would just ignore this thread if it didn't have my name plastered on the front of it.  But it does, so I can't.

So, I am entering myself as an expert witness.  Sven and Patrick get to ask me five questions each, about the collaborative process in general, about Sebonack in particular, or about whatever the hell they want.  And I'll answer them truthfully and as completely as I can.  But they've got to promise the thread is OVER after that. 

And they'd better not make me ask what part of OVER they didn't understand.

[Michael George]

Tom:

Good luck!  I am praying for you. 

[Howard Riefs]

Quite an evolution to this thread.

From Tom nearly acing #5 Blue in Brad's article ... to taking the stand and using multiple font colors.

At least there's no rumor of Tom taking deer antler spray to enhance his game.

[Sven Nilsen]

Tom:

If its okay with you, I'd rather open up my five questions to the group.  I think we might get a better range of inquisitiveness than we'd get just from me.

And once those questions are answered, I'm out.

Sven

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

If its okay with you, I'd rather open up my five questions to the group.  I think we might get a better range of inquisitiveness than we'd get just from me.

And once those questions are answered, I'm out.

Sven

Sven:

That would be okay with me, except, you are going to have to be the referee to keep it to five questions.

[Sven Nilsen]

First five asked by anyone but Mucci.  After that you're off the hook.

Sven

[Tom_Doak]

First five asked by anyone but Mucci.  After that you're off the hook.

Fair enough.  No one aside from Patrick gets to ask more than one question, though.  And Patrick should ask his five first.

[Jud_T]

OK, I'll take a crack.  Here's my naive concept of one aspect of the collaborative process within a team that happens frequently (at least for those firms who don't shape greens off of CAD drawings and spend enough time on site to get it right).  At any given time, Tom and Bill have some of the best shapers working in the business on their crews.  So let's say at course X on a given hole:  Tom has routed a hole with a green site that is not blatantly obvious at first glance from outstanding natural features.  He outlines the general strategy of the hole as he sees it and tells shaper Y to take a crack at the green with perhaps some general direction.  Shaper Y then goes to town creating contours of his own creation, yet following Tom's general instruction with how he sees the hole playing, and taking into account severity of other greens, how much dirt needs to be moved, how receptive green should be to approach and recovery shots, drainage etc.  Tom then comes back and reviews the work, adds or subtracts to what has been done, perhaps leaves it pretty much as is or suggests significant changes.  Discuss the back and forth nature of this process and use whatever examples you'd like to make your point.

[Greg Tallman]

First question...

[Jim Colton]

OK, I'll take a crack.  Here's my naive concept of one aspect of the collaborative process within a team that happens frequently (at least for those firms who don't shape greens off of CAD drawings and spend enough time on site to get it right).  At any given time, Tom and Bill have some of the best shapers working in the business.  So let's say at course X on a given hole:  Tom has routed a hole with a green site that is not blatantly obvious at first glance from outstanding natural features.  He outlines the general strategy of the hole as he sees it and tells shaper Y to take a crack at the green with perhaps some general direction.  Shaper Y then goes to town creating contours of his own creation, yet following Tom's general instruction with how he sees the hole playing, and taking into account severity of other greens, how much dirt needs to be moved, how receptive green should be to approach and recovery shots, drainage etc.  Tom then comes back and reviews the work, adds or subtracts to what has been done, perhaps leaves it pretty much as is or suggests significant changes.  Discuss the back and forth nature of this process and use whatever examples you'd like to make your point.

What's the question?

[Greg Tallman]

Jud and I obviously do not play by the rules... for that we apologize but Patrick is likely busy with somebody famous on the range or... whateve it is that folks like Mucci do so please amend that rule that he must ask the first five.

[Jud_T]

The question is trying to get to the heart of the back and forth creative collaborative nature of a given hole.

[Greg Tallman]

OK, I'll take a crack.  Here's my naive concept of one aspect of the collaborative process within a team that happens frequently (at least for those firms who don't shape greens off of CAD drawings and spend enough time on site to get it right).  At any given time, Tom and Bill have some of the best shapers working in the business.  So let's say at course X on a given hole:  Tom has routed a hole with a green site that is not blatantly obvious at first glance from outstanding natural features.  He outlines the general strategy of the hole as he sees it and tells shaper Y to take a crack at the green with perhaps some general direction.  Shaper Y then goes to town creating contours of his own creation, yet following Tom's general instruction with how he sees the hole playing, and taking into account severity of other greens, how much dirt needs to be moved, how receptive green should be to approach and recovery shots, drainage etc.  Tom then comes back and reviews the work, adds or subtracts to what has been done, perhaps leaves it pretty much as is or suggests significant changes.  Discuss the back and forth nature of this process and use whatever examples you'd like to make your point.

What's the question?

How much give and take is there on particular features that were found/created by the guys in the field rather than yourself and please elaborate on the process in general.

[Michael George]

Tom:

I have a question that might be useful as a case study.

Other than your first couple of courses, what course that you designed would you say that you maintained the most control (ie. you "micro-managed" every bump, hump and other parts of the project the most)?  

Likewise, other than Sebonack, what course that you designed would you say that you gave up the most management authority and relied on (or allowed) others for the finished product (ie. you accepted the work of others and allowed them creative license)?

How were the 2 processes different and how did it effect the end results?

[Tom_Doak]

OK, I'll take a crack.  Here's my naive concept of one aspect of the collaborative process within a team that happens frequently (at least for those firms who don't shape greens off of CAD drawings and spend enough time on site to get it right).  At any given time, Tom and Bill have some of the best shapers working in the business on their crews.  So let's say at course X on a given hole:  Tom has routed a hole with a green site that is not blatantly obvious at first glance from outstanding natural features.  He outlines the general strategy of the hole as he sees it and tells shaper Y to take a crack at the green with perhaps some general direction.  Shaper Y then goes to town creating contours of his own creation, yet following Tom's general instruction with how he sees the hole playing, and taking into account severity of other greens, how much dirt needs to be moved, how receptive green should be to approach and recovery shots, drainage etc.  Tom then comes back and reviews the work, adds or subtracts to what has been done, perhaps leaves it pretty much as is or suggests significant changes.  Discuss the back and forth nature of this process and use whatever examples you'd like to make your point.

Jud:  I didn't see a question mark above?  But, I'll play along anyway.

I think Bill and I are slightly different int he amount of instruction we generally give to the shapers at the start of building a green.   For me, it depends on who's shaping and on how strong my own ideas are.  There are some greens where I will tell them to wait until I get back on site and stand right there to watch, and others where I walk them through the concept of the green in great detail.  But there are many others where I do about as you describe above, and let my associate take the first crack at it to see what they come up with.  (I don't know for sure, but I don't think Bill turns his guys loose as often.)

At Streamsong, there was one green (Blue 9) where I actually did a little drawing of how I wanted the green and surrounding bunkers to look ... it's the first time in 25 years that I've gone that far because I was so sure what I wanted (and because usually I'm too embarrassed to draw).  I came back a month later to discover that they had ignored the drawing completely, forgotten that I'd done it!  I impressed upon Eric that was one that I knew what I wanted, so he quickly changed the green, but I had to ask Mike McCartin to change the back bunker twice ... and if he hadn't relented I would have asked someone else in his place.

The other greens at Streamsong Blue that are the most "mine" are Blue 2, 5, 8, 15 and 18.  The last two are very close to what was laying on the ground when we started ... #8 was a big change and I was actually on the dozer myself for a while there.  The coolest greens done by my associates are #6 (Mike McCartin), #10 (Eric Iverson and McCartin), #12 (Brian Slawnik) and #17 (Eric).  I did discuss the concept of the hole with Mike pretty thoroughly before he built the 6th, since it was the first green I'd let him solo on; I also told the guys what we needed to do on #10 but let them figure out how to make it work, and that was a phenomenal result from a nothingburger (TM Jim Urbina) green site.  At the other end of the scale, Eric just whipped up #17 all by himself, with no input from me, and no tweaking.