[Paul Jones]

I enjoyed watching Feherty last night with his interview of Jack Nicklaus.  Jack made good points about rolling the golf ball back:

-Old courses will not be obsolete
-Use less land
-Use less water
-Use less fertilizer, etc...

He said, I did not check, that from 1935 - 1995 ball went 6 yards further.  From 1995 - Now ball has gone 50 yards further.

I know nothing will come of this interview, but he did make some good points. 

[David Harshbarger]

The more I see of Jack the classier he seems to my eyes.  He made good points about being an architect particularly about applying his playing vision and understanding to his designs.  Also only took personal credit for 220 of firms 300 designs.

[jeffwarne]

I enjoyed watching Feherty last night with his interview of Jack Nicklaus.  Jack made good points about rolling the golf ball back:

-Old courses will not be obsolete
-Use less land
-Use less water
-Use less fertilizer, etc...

He said, I did not check, that from 1935 - 1995 ball went 6 yards further.  From 1995 - Now ball has gone 50 yards further.

I know nothing will come of this interview, but he did make some good points.  

Seems so simple.
Kudos to Jack.

Other sports do it (have a standard ball)
We're arguing about what method bad putters employ, and ignoring all the factors Jack mentions, to say nothing of the slower play in part created by longer waits for group to clear, longer walks back or forward to tees, more segregation within groups for players playing different tees, looking for balls hit farther astray etc....

We can come up with 100 reasons why Jack is wrong......
or simply put aside our conflicts of interests, and do the right thing.

Respected posters have indicated those who rail against hot clubs are hypocrites for doing nothing but commenting, AND complaining.
but it's a start and a lot of influential people post and lurk here.
12-15 years ago when the trend was bad for modern architecture, many on this site railed against insipid, unimaginative architecture, and championed courses such as Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, and Friar's Head, and IMO really helped turn the tide of public opinion and awareness to much better, thoughtful. classic architecture.
I'd say GCA had no small  part of raisiing awareness to a critical mass to the point where many of the then not so well known talented architects are now near household names to many, if not most golfers--certainly to more of those who are in positions of influence and power in the business, who in the 1990's often reached for names familiar due to lineage rather than talent

Pile on

[Jason Thurman]

Jack really has been a wonderful advocate of shorter courses that use fewer inputs and less resources throughout his design career.

[ward peyronnin]

See my recent thread.

Jack stepped up and designed a nine hole extension of a course in Tacoma Wash intended for wounded warriors gratis

Very classy

[Bart Bradley]

I listened to this interview as well.  I would love it if the architects on this site and the architectural societies would all take such a position.  He asked for a 20% roll back of the ball.  I am ready.  Let's go!

Bart

[Matthew Petersen]

Jack really has been a wonderful advocate of shorter courses that use fewer inputs and less resources throughout his design career.

That was my reaction, too.

I'm all for what he says, but has the opportunity to lead by example and he's not doing it.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Ward
I met a couple the guys behind the project once at the Golf Industry Show - very cool indeed
How much did the extension cost to build and how much to maintain?

Jason
How many projects has Nicklaus Design created that were shorter or have fewer inputs?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Two unrelated thoughts - I actually thought Faz did a great job of not catering to length.  It seems as if many of his courses top out at 6800 yards, forgetting the tour pros and top ams who will rarely play there.  I would question whether JN could ever truly get away from his tournament tough sales pitch, although I know his designs have softened.

Speaking of architecture on TV last night, did you happen to catch Leno?  On his "Looks Dirty but it isn't" segment, he showed a Golf Channel guy drawing a crude golf hole on a chalk board.  After drawing a tee box lower left, he drew two parallel and gently curving lines as a dogleg and added a little circle at the end for a green.  It looked like a big penis......and would have looked more so if he had chosen a free form, peanut shaped tee in place of a rectangle.

[Tom_Doak]

I gave up on the architectural societies standing for anything when they wouldn't make any group statement about The Old Course, leaving it to the consciences [and press releases] of individual members, who promptly explained why standing for something is so hard.

I agree with Jack.

But, I also agree with the posters who have said that we architects have not led by example, and have not held the line against building ever longer courses.  I USED to hold the line against building 7000-yard courses -- I think only one of my first ten courses broke 7000 yards, and that one was a par-73.  

I thought I was going pretty far out on a limb when I held Pacific Dunes down to 6700 -- and Barnbougle and St. Andrews Beach, too.  Julian Robertson was the one who made me yield, talking about having a New Zealand Open at Cape Kidnappers, and reminding me how far the pros hit it at Shinnecock.  Since then, more clients than not have talked me into 7000+.  Hell, nowadays I am just trying to hold the line against 7500 yards, which three different clients have asked for directly.

I've also yielded because I've pretty much given up on the governing bodies to actually do anything about it.  For years, I believed that the day would come that they would make a correction, and then all my courses would be just fine.  But I don't have the lung capacity to hold my breath forever.

P.S. to Jeff:  You sound like a newlywed!

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

It is hard for any group to come up with one statement that summarizes all 175 opinions within the group, esepcially given the professional burden of actully knowing what you are talking about, rather than speculating from a continent away.  Add in the implied criticism of both another architect and another golf association, and its a tough row to hoe.  So, societies cannot be all things.

Great to hear an articulation of just how hard it is to toe the line on a strongly held belief.  I do suspect that most here would somehow give you cred as a "victim" while figuring JN or TF would be a villain, but its pretty much the same for all of us.  And the real culprit is the client who feels they need a course no one can play regularly in hopes of attracting one tournament in a lifetime (or maybe a three year contract for one)

OT, I guess, but after a lot of thought, I have no trouble holding my back tee yardages to about 7250.  College golf coaches (leading those who supposedly hit it further than the tour guys) say they have 2 of 10 who clear 300 yards regularly.  And, the NCAA sets up its courses at about 7250, trying to protect the bottom 80% of the college fields from being non-competitive.  So, if 7250 is good for a tournament course in college, then it ought to be enough for any course.  Not sure what the average tour course sets up at now, but who really cares?  Like I said, many Faz courses, aimed at the 60 year olds who can afford an elite club, are well under 7K, and designed more for those who will play them, i.e., reasonable challenge.

Add in clever design for the back tees requiring some native carry, and I think we can hold turf acreages down to something reasonable.

[JMEvensky]

Great to hear an articulation of just how hard it is to toe the line on a strongly held belief.  I do suspect that most here would somehow give you cred as a "victim" while figuring JN or TF would be a villain, but its pretty much the same for all of us.  And the real culprit is the client who feels they need a course no one can play regularly in hopes of attracting one tournament in a lifetime (or maybe a three year contract for one)

I'd bet the overwhelming majority would know it's the client who insists on a certain yardage.Architects probably get,mistakenly,pigeon holed about certain types of golf courses.But most people understand the yardage pissing contest is between owners.

BTW--mazel tov on the wedding.

[Dave McCollum]

I enjoyed watching Feherty last night with his interview of Jack Nicklaus.  Jack made good points about rolling the golf ball back:

I'd say GCA had no small  part of raisiing awareness to a critical mass to the point where many of the then not so well known talented architects are now near household names to many, if not most golfers--certainly to more of those who are in positions of influence and power in the business, who in the 1990's often reached for names familiar due to lineage rather than talent.

Pile on

Jeff,
I welcome Jack’s mellowing views about golf and golf courses.  Also, the views other architects have espoused about similar philosophies and have believed all along.  However, it’s the “if not most golfers” modifier that troubles me.  If you are correct about having an influence at the top, do you really see a trickle-down effect having much influence on the everyday golfer?
  
I don’t.  I’m not disrespecting the everyday golfer; they know why they play and what they enjoy.  Yet, while the everyday golfer would like courses that suit their games, they don’t seem to have much enlightenment about a great many discussions that occur here and, specifically, the four items listed above.  They sure as hell don’t want their ball rolled back, don’t know what bifurcation means, and won’t modify their games because the pros play differently.

[Bill McKinley]

Can anyone tell me the two golf courses that Jack mentioned by name during his interview with Feherty? Augusta National and...

[Joel_Stewart]

Can anyone tell me the two golf courses that Jack mentioned by name during his interview with Feherty? Augusta National and...

Turnberry and Pebble Beach.

[jeffwarne]

I enjoyed watching Feherty last night with his interview of Jack Nicklaus.  Jack made good points about rolling the golf ball back:

I'd say GCA had no small  part of raisiing awareness to a critical mass to the point where many of the then not so well known talented architects are now near household names to many, if not most golfers--certainly to more of those who are in positions of influence and power in the business, who in the 1990's often reached for names familiar due to lineage rather than talent.

Pile on

Jeff,
I welcome Jack’s mellowing views about golf and golf courses.  Also, the views other architects have espoused about similar philosophies and have believed all along.  However, it’s the “if not most golfers” modifier that troubles me.  If you are correct about having an influence at the top, do you really see a trickle-down effect having much influence on the everyday golfer?
  
I don’t.  I’m not disrespecting the everyday golfer; they know why they play and what they enjoy.  Yet, while the everyday golfer would like courses that suit their games, they don’t seem to have much enlightenment about a great many discussions that occur here and, specifically, the four items listed above.  They sure as hell don’t want their ball rolled back, don’t know what bifurcation means, and won’t modify their games because the pros play differently.

Yes Dave, I too struggled with that modifier.
My point was tha Jack is bringing awareness to the issue (it's not the first time-he's been doing it for years)
and that here on GCA it doesn't hurt to continue to bring awareness, the same as crap architecture was a the forefront for most owners and developers 20 years ago.
It's got to start somewhere.
I'd say most of the golfers you discuss wouldn't know if their ball was rolled back, and that many would support it if given logical reasons.
Very few ran out and bought the Callaway illegal driver.

[Paul_Turner]

It's funny, when Feherty played he would repeatedly slag off Jack's courses.  I wonder if Jack remembers?

[JSlonis]

I enjoyed watching Feherty last night with his interview of Jack Nicklaus.  Jack made good points about rolling the golf ball back:

-Old courses will not be obsolete
-Use less land
-Use less water
-Use less fertilizer, etc...

He said, I did not check, that from 1935 - 1995 ball went 6 yards further.  From 1995 - Now ball has gone 50 yards further.

I know nothing will come of this interview, but he did make some good points. 

While I agree with much of what Mr Nicklaus says in regard to equipment, I think he's overstated the 50 yd gain since 1995 a great deal.  It's simply not that big of a gain.

[Jason Thurman]

It's funny, when Feherty played he would repeatedly slag off Jack's courses.  I wonder if Jack remembers?

If you watch the show, there is a moment when Feherty remembers Jack remembering.

Feherty does a very good Nicklaus impression.

[Paul_Turner]

Jason

Feherty tried his hand at design too...I played one of his:  Mentmore.  It was pretty bad on a good piece of land.

[ward peyronnin]

Just curious Paul what did you find bad about it? Not that I really trust a self admitted ADD, recovering alcoholic gadfly  would have the tools to design a golf course

[Jason Thurman]

Just curious Paul what did you find bad about it? Not that I really trust a self admitted ADD, recovering alcoholic gadfly  would have the tools to design a golf course

True. After the debacle that Crump designed before killing himself, and what an awful career Dick Wilson had, it's hard to believe someone who struggled with mental illness or alcoholism would even get a chance at designing a course.

[Tom_Doak]

I forgot to mention it earlier, but one other factor in the lengthening of courses has been ... the GOLF DIGEST rankings.

When they started those rankings in 1966, they glorified the 200 toughest courses, including all of the long courses that Trent Jones and Dick Wilson had been building in the fifties and sixties.  When they switched it to "Greatest" courses, there was a brief reversal, thanks to Pete Dye's change of pace at Harbour Town.

But when they started doing everything by the numbers, in 1985, that damned formula of theirs and its emphasis on Resistance to Scoring began to have too much effect.  Both clients AND architects started stretching courses to the breaking point, for fear they would otherwise be leaving "points on the table" in how the course was ranked.  It had a big effect during the boom of new course construction that lasted until 2008.

It's not really reversible, of course, because there aren't enough new courses being built today to start a counter-trend.  But, it would be nice to see GOLF DIGEST change its emphasis on difficulty, the same way they saw the light and changed their emphasis on over-manicured turf.  The only difference is in who are the main advertisers in GOLF DIGEST.

[Dave McCollum]

I agree it’s a good thing that Jack now champions the average Joe (now that he has become one).  I disagree that Joe would not notice a ball roll back (bad words).  Joe would notice.  Logic has nothing to do with it.  All golfers love the long ball. Yet, that same golfer who wants lush green fairways would not want to lose 20 yards off a good drive.  Therefore, my doubt he’d respond to “logical reasons.”

[Angela Moser]

Applying as a GD Rater last year I only got a letter back - I don't carry it with me, so this is pretty much what it says:

Dear Angela,
thank you very much for your interest in becoming a Golf Digest Rater. Unfortunately we cannot include you in our Rater community, as you have to have a maximum HCP of 5 (I'm a 7) and be able to tee of every range of tees.
Have a great day...

?? As a GD Rater with Hcp 5 or better would tee off a front tee...

PS: I don't really know why I wanted to be a GD Rater, but I think this letter speaks for itself.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()