[Chris Johnston]

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.

Tiger, I believe my post is accurate wrt Dismal River redo of greens, but I concur (as I mentioned) I wasn't here at the time and know little about the Jack and Tom interaction at Sebonack and don't knopw who came first. 

[Adam Clayman]

Did Chris Cochran work at Sebonak? recalling DR's original set, there were few internal contours, compared to todays DR greens. Generally, more sectioned. I wouldn't have called them severe, but too low a HOC, for their slopes, definitely. 

As for this thread, It is amazing how speculating can sound so so....

I know about the 15th green. I thought it an inspired green site, when I saw it some 4-5 yrs ago. Jimmy U told me it was all Nicklaus. Looking at the current picture, is not how I remember most of it. Trees have been cut to open the view, beyond, and the green appears to have been altered. But from my weak recollection that means nothing. Tom has mentioned how the course has been tweaked and tweaked. That's owner/management's prerogative.

[Mac Plumart]

I know about the 15th green. I thought it an inspired green site, when I saw it some 4-5 yrs ago. Jimmy U told me it was all Nicklaus.

I thought so.   

Any confirmation on 17?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Chris I think this is about Sebonack. I know nothing about the history or work at DR. The idea that a green at DR ended up in replica form at Sebonack does not make sense to me. I have heard nothing to indicate this would be the case either. However that does not mean it is not so. Jack, Jim Lipe, Tom or the owners team would have to confirm that.

[Bob_Huntley]

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?

As Rhett said to Scarlett, "Who gives a damn?'


Bob

[Ronald Montesano]

Bob,

Lost to history is Scarlett's response, which is the thread we're exploring here. Curiosity and interest, nothing more.

[Mac Plumart]

Tiger...it is not that replicas of Sebonack greens are at Dismal River.  It is that the greens have the similiar feel and characteristics.  Much like Pacific Dunes greens have similar characterictiscs to Ballyneal's greens. 

It is interesting, for me, to study Jack's work because it evolves.  Hence, my interest in this thread and Sebonack.


As a side note, there seems to be a lot of frayed nerves and testiness on the site right now.   I don't know why.  But if you don't "give a damn" about any one thread...don't read it. 

[Tom_Doak]

I've always said that this design was a collaboration.  Hopefully the recap below will prove it.  Having checked with my attorney that the statute of limitations has expired, here is my scorecard of who was responsible for the design of which greens at Sebonack.  Please note that it is not just divided between Jack and myself; a lot of people were involved in those greens.  Mostly that was a good thing; once or twice, probably not!

I won't be surprised if other parties remember things slightly differently; everybody tends to remember their own role as being a little greater.  However, I don't think I'm doing that for myself in the list below, since people tend to give me more credit for them than I do myself.  What I'm trying to give credit for here is the basic design of green contours and the bunkers around the green. 

Of course, it's important where you locate the green to begin with, and Jack and I were responsible for that part.  And of course, Jack and I signed off personally on every one of the greens before it was considered "designed", though Jack didn't see the present 16th until it was finished, and I still haven't seen the new 14th.


#1 - Doak / Brian Slawnik - This was a green we had reshaped two or three times, and never got anything that anybody liked.  On one of his latter visits, Jack complained that it was going to be a "zero" hole ... at which point I got ticked off and got on the machine myself to hammer out the basics of this green in all its severity.  Brian Slawnik took it from there to make it playable.  [The only other greens where I was on the equipment at all were #13 and #15.]

#2 - Brian Schneider / Doak - Brian's original version was extremely severe ... Nicklaus and I both took turns softening it.  But the idea of putting a green back in the dunes with the big false front and the pocket in the back right, was part of my idea when routing the course.

#3 - The only one I don't really remember, because we had to build it while there was a huge pile of screened topsoil sitting 50 yards in front of the green ... you couldn't see the green from the fairway until it was ready to seed.  I think Slawnik or Schneider shaped it, with a bit of instruction from me and possibly a sketch from Jack.

#4 - Urbina - One of the first greens we built, and one of the better ones.  Haven't seen the recent expansion, which is Michael Pascucci's idea.

#5 - Nicklaus - Based on a green at Rhode Island CC which Jack liked.  Built entirely to his sketch.

#6 - Urbina / Doak - I spent two minutes describing an idea to Jim; he shaped it himself the first day of construction, while waiting for someone else to get on site.  Jack loved it and never changed a thing.  It's still probably the best green there.

#7 - Nicklaus / Brian Slawnik

#8 - Doak / Nicklaus - No one ever really loved this hole except for Mr. Pascucci; he wanted a tough par-3 with water, and we had to put the irrigation pond here.

#9 - Urbina / Doak - Similar to #6.  These two and the original 14th were the first greens we built, before Jack came out to look at what we were doing.

#10 - Jim Lipe / Urbina / Nicklaus / Doak - We were all involved in this one, over several versions.  The original idea was Lipe's or Urbina's, can't remember which for sure.  Jack had a lot to do with the shallowness of the back left segment.  My only contribution was to remove a tier on the high right and just keep the slope down to the next tier as the start of the green.

#11 - Urbina / Doak - This green was in the middle of a softball field when we started construction; all the contouring is artificial.  Softened by Nicklaus.

#12 -  Nicklaus - Jack sketched out the contours of the green at the Postage Stamp hole when I mentioned it as a possible prototype.  He also sketched the sharp knob to the left of the Postage Stamp green; Jim and I didn't built that part, because it would have hidden some cool sandy stuff to the back left.

#13 - Doak / Lipe / Nicklaus / Urbina - Similar to #10.

#14 - original green - Urbina - which I loved.  Current green - Michael Pascucci, with help from Jerame Miller, who shapes for Jack.

#15 - Nicklaus

#16 - original green - Doak.  Current green (70 yards further back) - Urbina, at Mr. Pascucci's request.

#17 - Nicklaus.  Brian Schneider had a cool green built here, but Jack didn't like it at all.

#18 - Schneider / Doak.  Based on 5th green at Muirfield.

#19 - Urbina / George Waters / Garret Bodington.  It was Garret's idea to have a 19th hole and play to this green site, which Michael P. had always wanted to utilize as the site of the first green.  [It was too long a walk to #2 tee, plus it brought the o.b. too much into play on the first hole, so we couldn't do that, although Michael is still trying to convince Mike Davis to use it as an alternate first green for the Women's Open.]  I've always thought it was one of the coolest greens out there.  I didn't do a thing to it, and Jack never really even looked at it, as far as I know.

Also note:  There is a great set of green sketches by Jack's associate Chris Rule, hanging in the clubhouse.  A lot of them are as-builts of the things we were building, rather than original designs.  The only greens where I remember us looking at sketches to try and build something in particular were #5, #12, #15, and #17.

[JC Jones]

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.

Ding ding ding

[Ronald Montesano]

Glad you checked with your attorney, Tom Doak. Thanks for that green-by-green revelation...now I just need to find a night with a full moon to check them out...or wait for 2013 and late June.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D - Your post brought to mind a possible 'collaborative challenge' I hadn't thought of, i.e. how to envision and agree upon what greens will look like and play like if/when there are differing philosophies about how greens should integrate with/relate to the rest of the hole, particularly the approach shot.  

My impression is that JN's philosophy in this regard has been fundamentally shaped by his experiences at Augusta, such that the shape/contour of his greens relate closely to (and in fact determine) the ideal line of approach from the fairway.   My impression is that your philosophy, on the other hand, has been shaped by your experience with the early Scottish links courses, such that the "ideal line" of approach is more of a variable and thus the shapes/contours of the greens and surrounds are more independent of the rest of the hole, and put instead a greater focus on/endender a variety of challenges re putting and recovery shots.

If that's a fairly accurate view of the differences (I grant that it may not be at all), did you find that there were challenges inherent in deciding on greens when there were differences in yours and JN's "whole hole" approaches?

Peter


  

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks Tom...what a great post.

[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.

Ding ding ding

Man, I'm good!   

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D - Your post brought to mind a possible 'collaborative challenge' I hadn't thought of, i.e. how to envision and agree upon what greens will look like and play like if/when there are differing philosophies about how greens should integrate with/relate to the rest of the hole, particularly the approach shot.  

My impression is that JN's philosophy in this regard has been fundamentally shaped by his experiences at Augusta, such that the shape/contour of his greens relate closely to (and in fact determine) the ideal line of approach from the fairway.   My impression is that your philosophy, on the other hand, has been shaped by your experience with the early Scottish links courses, such that the "ideal line" of approach is more of a variable and thus the shapes/contours of the greens and surrounds are more independent of the rest of the hole, and put instead a greater focus on/endender a variety of challenges re putting and recovery shots.

If that's a fairly accurate view of the differences (I grant that it may not be at all), did you find that there were challenges inherent in deciding on greens when there were differences in yours and JN's "whole hole" approaches?

Peter

Peter:

I was surprised that we didn't debate the greens contouring as much as I expected to.  I think that Jack had come around to the same general view that I had at the time, that length was becoming such a non-factor that contour in the greens had become essential to testing the best players.  [I'm having to revisit this view regarding the Olympic project, but I can't discuss that for the time being.]

I think I think more about the ideal approach angle than most architects do, and try to reward angle over a higher trajectory.  I don't think Jack and I are so far apart on that, either.

I think the main difference between Jack and myself was in regard to what happens when you miss a green.  My designs generally give a side of the green from which it will be easier to have a chance to get up and down, and a side where it's almost impossible.  Jack tends to like greens where it is difficult [but not impossible] to get up and down from ANY side after a miss.  So, he was often adding bunkers at the edges on what I was trying to make the safe side.

[Jim Colton]

Tom,

  I've seen those Nicklaus sketches. Is Jack's approach to greens generally to sketch them out on the grid with all of the internal contours then try to match the sketch as best they can in the field?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

  I've seen those Nicklaus sketches. Is Jack's approach to greens generally to sketch them out on the grid with all of the internal contours then try to match the sketch as best they can in the field?

Jim:

I'll defer that question to Jim Lipe, if he wants to answer it.  I've only seen Jack's process for the one course.  At Sebonack, he sketched a few of the greens in the field [sometimes with a lot of contour information or dimensions, sometimes with very little, depending on what he was trying to emphasize].  I don't think he does many green sketches when he's not standing on site.

[Carl Rogers]

I've always said that this design was a collaboration.  Hopefully the recap below will prove it.  Having checked with my attorney that the statute of limitations has expired, here is my scorecard of who was responsible for the design of which greens at Sebonack.  Please note that it is not just divided between Jack and myself; a lot of people were involved in those greens.  Mostly that was a good thing; once or twice, probably not!

...

Also note:  There is a great set of green sketches by Jack's associate Chris Rule, hanging in the clubhouse.  A lot of them are as-builts of the things we were building, rather than original designs.  The only greens where I remember us looking at sketches to try and build something in particular were #5, #12, #15, and #17.

The question I would have is that the result of this created a "NEW" kind of result that neither of the parties could ever do left to their own individual devices.  Perhaps too  hard a question to answer ........

[Ross Harmon]

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

It's hard to describe those two greens in words or pictures. Both very fun and extremely challenging. I had some of my best putts on those holes and I had some of my worst. Just one of many reasons why Ballyneal is such a fun course to play over and over again!

[Jim Colton]

Tom,

  I've seen those Nicklaus sketches. Is Jack's approach to greens generally to sketch them out on the grid with all of the internal contours then try to match the sketch as best they can in the field?

Jim:

I'll defer that question to Jim Lipe, if he wants to answer it.  I've only seen Jack's process for the one course.  At Sebonack, he sketched a few of the greens in the field [sometimes with a lot of contour information or dimensions, sometimes with very little, depending on what he was trying to emphasize].  I don't think he does many green sketches when he's not standing on site.

Tom,

  Now that the statute of limitations is over, maybe you can answer this one: Were there specific examples in the field where you/your team said to yourselves: "I can't believe they do things THAT way?" or vice versa?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

  I've seen those Nicklaus sketches. Is Jack's approach to greens generally to sketch them out on the grid with all of the internal contours then try to match the sketch as best they can in the field?

Jim:

I'll defer that question to Jim Lipe, if he wants to answer it.  I've only seen Jack's process for the one course.  At Sebonack, he sketched a few of the greens in the field [sometimes with a lot of contour information or dimensions, sometimes with very little, depending on what he was trying to emphasize].  I don't think he does many green sketches when he's not standing on site.

Tom,

  Now that the statute of limitations is over, maybe you can answer this one: Were there specific examples in the field where you/your team said to yourselves: "I can't believe they do things THAT way?" or vice versa?

Jim:

Not really.  We don't approach things the same way, but I wasn't surprised at how Jack's team went about things; of course, I knew a fair amount about their process going in.

I think they were a bit more surprised about how we do things, but you'd have to ask Jim Lipe.  The one thing I do remember vividly was that at the end of the press conference day, after Jack had left, Jim Urbina and I and Jim Lipe went out to look at a couple of the green sites where I had some ideas and which I wanted Jim U. to start working on first.  [These were the sixth and ninth greens, mentioned above.]  We looked at #6 green site, which was set into a pretty good slope, and I just told Jim that I wanted to build a pretty steep back-to-front sloping green, broken up by a couple of internal contours and kind of crowned in the middle, with a bunker at the left front holding up a hole location behind it, and a bit of a false front to the right of it.  That's all I told him ... nothing about how much slope in different parts of the green [because I knew he understands the limits we use, and I didn't know exactly how much slope was there to start], or exactly how big, or any of that.

Then as we started to walk up to #9 green, to look at that one, Jim Lipe asked Jim, "When is he going to tell you exactly what he wants you to do?"  And Jim Urbina responded, "He just did."  I think they were pretty surprised that we didn't put more than that on paper, and that I would leave so much of the details to let someone else try and work out.  But I knew that was probably all Jim needed to hear.  I usually edit the greens in the field after they are rough shaped, but on that one, I didn't have to do anything more.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()