[Dan_Callahan]

Forget about shining light on the subject. This just feeds into today's unrelenting demands for immediate information about everybody else's life and work.

In this case, I'm glad to see the parties involved putting the team ahead of the individual. There's nothing more infantile than watching professionals bitch and moan about not getting credit for "X" or blaming someone else for "Y."

I see this course as a Doak/Nicklaus layout—perhaps the only one that will ever be built. It should be praised or criticized for what is in the ground, not picked apart, feature by feature, according to who came up with what.

[Dan Kelly]

Sorry. I don't know how to do that color-thing quite right. Hope you can follow this:

Mr. Nicklaus (et al.) and Mr. Doak (et al.) agreed to build this course in collaboration. They are, on this occasion, a team, presumably capable of saying both yes and no to each other -- and their collective work (not their individual contributions to that collective) is what should be seen, played, and judged.


What if your underlying premise is incorrect ?[/color]

If it is, it is. Is it?

The routing is theirs -- no matter who devised it.
The holes are theirs -- no matter who designed which of them.
The hazards are theirs -- no matter who conceived them.
The course is theirs -- no matter who contributed what.

That's more of a political, rather than an architectural  statement.[/color]

That's your opinion, and I certainly wouldn't disagree with it.

Call me an unprofessional journalist (a quisling to my trade!), but I hope Mr. Doak and Mr. Nicklaus and all of their confederates will keep their mouths as closed as humanly possible regarding who did what.

It's understandable for parties in a joint venture to present a unified front.  I happen to agree with the concept.
But, It's also interesting to know where good ideas come from.
They don't reside solely in the brain of the big name architect.

Bill Coore told an interesting story with respect to the creation of the centerline bunker on # 8 at Hidden Creek.
He clearly indicated that it wasn't his idea, but rather, a concept some of his staff came up with.

He didn't feel any less accomplished because one or more of his staff had a great idea.  Collaboration has produced some of the great golf courses of the world.

In an informative, rather than a critical context, it would be interesting to know how various features came into being.

I agree with everything you said there. Everything.

A journalist who wants to stamp "classified" and/or "top secret" on an issue or project, has lost his objectivity in favor of cuddling up to the parties involved.[/b][/color]

No. Wrong. Totally unjustified leap to a completely wrong conclusion. (Journalists do that sometimes, too.)

The truth is:

I have no interest in "cuddling up" to any architect, living or dead.

I slyly hope Doak and Nicklaus present a unified front and decline to say who did what (other than giving credit where it's due to their associates) because it amuses me to imagine you guys going a little nuts trying to figure out who did what.
It amuses me to imagine some Tom MacWood-type character, a century from now, pulling his hair out trying to figure out who did what. It amuses me to imagine some Ron Whitten-type character claiming, a century from now, that Sebonack was REALLY all Doak, or REALLY all Nicklaus -- or REALLY all some anonymous shaper (possibly named Burbeck).

I was being purely mischievous here.

I don't care one way or another if they talk or if they don't. I'm sure it'll be interesting if they do.

That's the truth.

Let you-all speculate!

For an individual who declares that he wants to learn more about architecture, to have more light shone on the subjects, why would you promote being kept in the dark ?[/color]

I hope you understand that I've just answered that.

Let the lights shine bright! Or not.

It's none of my business.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II & Dan Callahan,

Do you feel it's equally unimportant as to which work at GCGC is Emmett's and which is Travis's ?

Colt & Crump's at PV ?

McKenzie's and Maxwell's at ANGC ?

Why is authorship is being looked at in a negative context ?
Why is there a fear of identification ?

Someone mentioned the insertion of a pond on a hole at Sebonack and I'd be curious as to its origins ?

Wouldn't you ?

[JESII]

Pat,

If you're referring to any work done at Garden City, Pine Valley or Augusta in which both of the architects you referrence for each site were on site at the time the work was done and said themselves it was a collaboration then I would leave it at that.

Again, I bet if you asked Tom Doak about a specific feature at Sebonack and its evolution he would be forthcoming.

Is it "who did what", or "why was it done" that you are really seeking?

[Michael Moore]

Pat Mucci -

"Why does Nietzsche challenge the pursuit of the origin (Ursprung), at least on those occasions when he is truly a genealogist? First, because it is an attempt to capture the exact essence of things, their purest possibilities, and their carefully protected identities . . . if the genealoglist refuses to extend his faith in metaphysics, if he listens to history, he finds that there is something altogether different behind things - not a timeless and essential secret, but the secret that they have no essence or that their essence was fabricated in a piecemeal fashion from alien forms."

Michel Foucault - "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History"

[Mike Hendren]

I had no idea the former Packer linebacker was so erudite.

Mike

[JESII]

Is it Sebonac, ...ak or ....ack?

[Dan Kelly]

I had no idea the former Packer linebacker was so erudite.

Mike

Don't miss his "Thus Spoke Lombardi" -- co-written with Zeke Bratkowski. It's a Wisconsin classic.

No one has ever figured out who wrote which chapters.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is it "who did what", or "why was it done" that you are really seeking?

BOTH

Aren't you intriqued by the creative process ?
[/color]

[JESII]

That's an interesting question Pat, please forgive the fact that you had to ask it twice.

I don't think it matters to me at all who did what at a course not yet open or one that's been open for 85 years. Having said that I can appreciate your desire to learn those details. I can imagine the learning process you are seeking...what did Doak do here that might have resulted from some influence from Nicklaus?...How will Doak's methods and practices effect the next Nicklaus course? I may well be at a different stage of understanding with respect to GCA, as you may recognize, I look at golf courses on the ground and try to analyze what is there.

I am not looking at authorship negatively, nor am I afraid of identification, I do however respect the wishes of the authors. I would be more curious about the reasons for that pond than about who thought of it. No worries.

[ForkaB]

I had no idea the former Packer linebacker was so erudite.

Mike

Don't miss his "Thus Spoke Lombardi" -- co-written with Zeke Bratkowski. It's a Wisconsin classic.

No one has ever figured out who wrote which chapters.

Yeah, and it was Bratkowski who also coined that phrase about sausages, politics and golf courses you quoted on another thread......

[TEPaul]

As to who did what at Sebonack, I for one am very interested to know the details of anything to do with the golf course, who exactly did what and why, who's idea any detail was etc, etc.

Some say Tom Doak can be quite closed mouthed sometimes but on a walk around the course with him recently he told a group of us who precisely did what and why on all the 9,871,451 architectural and other details of the golf course.

I'd love to tell you bunch of howling snoop-dogs anything you want to know about any architectural detail of the golf course, who did what, who screwed up, who bailed him out, who the geniuses and dunces on the project were but unfortunately as we got in our cars to leave Tom Doak said;

"All those 9,871,451 architectural and other details I just told you all about are completely off the record and if any of you breath a word about any of them to anyone I know where you fellas live."

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Thanks for respecting my ground rules.  The people who are most insistent about knowing all the juicy details are the ones who will never hear any of them from me.

[Michael Moore]

Tom Doak -

I know that you have studied your philosophy,so the next time someone asks you who designed this or that just say "the essence of Sebonack was fabricated in a piecemeal fashion from alien forms".

[Mark Hissey]

Is it Sebonac, ...ak or ....ack?

Sebonack is the correct spelling.

[Mark Hissey]

I'd like to add a little input here.

Having been involved in this project from the very start, I think I am in a relatively good position to comment on the nature of the collaboration between Tom and Jack.

Frankly, I had no idea how it would work out but I was optimistic it would work out properly. My opinion is that it worked out better than I could have ever hoped for.

There was tremendous mutual respect between Jack and Tom. The process of discussing the design in the field was engrossing. Every site visit would involve walking all eighteen holes and having extensive and detailed discussions on everything. Collaboration at its best.

Jim Lipe makes a very good point. Chris Rule wasn't mentioned in this article and he clearly should have been. While Jim Urbina was the workhorse from the RGD side, Chris was from the Nicklaus side. Both of these talented men were on site constantly and they really became a great team; yet another facet of this collaboration. Whatever work needed to be done, Chris or Jim could cover it. They really trusted and relied on one another.

These site visits were really something to witness. Jack, Tom, Michael Pascucci, Jim Urbina, Jim Lipe, Chris Rule, Garret Bodington, myself, all of the shapers and the engineers all spending hours together discussing everything from the first tee to the bye hole green. Ideas were coming from everywhere but Tom and Jack were clearly the bosses out there acting as a true partnership.

So, the truth is that this project ran far, far smoother than anyone could have hoped. It was a testament to the professionalism of Jack and Tom. I'd love it if you would stop persuing this credit issue. There's nothing to reveal. Please just appreciate Sebonack for what it is. Love it or hate it. But respect the fact that two of the greatest architects of our time gave their all to create something special.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Hissey,

So, would you say that two heads are better than one ?

The question is:

Is a better product produced vis a vis a collaboration ?

Or, is the product diminished by compromise ?

And, are the questions both site and architect specific ?

Over five years ago I floated the concept of peer review, in a positive context, knowing full well that unlike the medical profession, that it would never occur.

But, it remains a fascinating concept, especially since it seems that many of the "Golden Age" courses and architects benefited from collaboration.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

As I've already said above, the answers to your questions will be found in people's opinions of the finished product at Sebonack, and whether they think it's better than my solo work and/or Jack's.  Of course, we didn't have the same site for our other work, but there is pretty much no one in this forum who can judge our work based on that.

It doesn't matter who contributed what; it matters if the end product is better because we worked together.  If it isn't, then Mr. Pascucci will have wasted a bit of his money.

[Mark Hissey]

Mark Hissey,

So, would you say that two heads are better than one ?

The question is:

Is a better product produced vis a vis a collaboration ?

Or, is the product diminished by compromise ?

And, are the questions both site and architect specific ?

Over five years ago I floated the concept of peer review, in a positive context, knowing full well that unlike the medical profession, that it would never occur.

But, it remains a fascinating concept, especially since it seems that many of the "Golden Age" courses and architects benefited from collaboration.

Patrick.

I can't answer in absolutes obviously, but my personal opinion in response to your questions are as follows:

1. Yes, I would say two heads are generally better than one, but obviously that depends on the two heads. In this case, the two heads were unquestionably better than one.

2. I think a better product is produced from a collaboration. However, for this to happen, the collaborators need to be  enthusiastic about working together and focused on making their egos secondary to the goal of producing a great result. This definitely happened at Sebonack.

3. There isn't compromise in my view. There is probing, questioning and challenging. There is the thought of brilliant men focusing on an issue. If a gang of buffoons were working together the result would be poor. A team of intelligent people produce a better result.

4. (a) I think some architects could never work in a situation like this. Their egos, disrespect for the game and lack of vision wouldn't allow it. Architects with a desire for challenge, with a need to do the right thing, can work in a situation like this with no problem.
  (b) Some sites wouldn't need two architects for two reasons in my mind. Financially it would make little sense in most cases. Second, some sites are just too average for it.

[A_Clay_Man]

Would it be appropriate to ask what positive influences were taken away by any and/or all involved?

Mark Hissey- What did you learn from your counterpart, in the collaboraton?

[Patrick_Mucci]

It matters if the end product is better because we worked together.  

That's the essence of my thought and question.

Does collaboration produce a better product, or does collaboration mandate compromise, which in turn produces a less creative or diminished product ?

I don't know that any of us know the answer to the question.
As I suggested, it may be site and architect specific.

However, it seems that highly successful architects of the "Golden Age" tended to share ideas and collaborate on projects.

There's a reason that government and industry cultivate
"think tanks".   They tend to form a synergy for creativity.

They bring fresh opinions and divergent persepectives to the problem at hand, alternatives that one individual alone might not discover or consider.

To a degree doesn't this already exist, internally, amongst the staff within most organizations ?

Wouldn't there be benefits if it was applied externally ?

Professionally, physicians do it all the time, however, I've rarely seen lawyers adopt the process.

Perhaps that's because the practice of medicine is so highly specialized.[/color]

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Patrick,

I think the real benefit from the collaboration would be the ideas that might disseminate from the process.  Mr. Hissey alluded to some very intense meetings where there must have been a lot of synergy.  Ultimately I think it matters very little who designed any course.  The real benefit for all comes from the ideas, the processes that may shed light on new ways of approaching design and construction that come out of a collaboration.  

I think some may want to dissect the collaboration because they probably feel that two distinct ideologies were involved in the design and they want to make certain that all of the positive features, or the features that best promote their ideology, are called out and recognized to further enhance their view of design.  

Unfortunately, it may impossible to have that kind of honest, illuminating discussion that could benefit some of us because it will devolve into an accounting of which idea belongs to which camp, not at the initiation of the design participants, but rather at the initiation of others who care less about the ideas of others and care more about their own ideas.

[Mark Hissey]

Would it be appropriate to ask what positive influences were taken away by any and/or all involved?

Mark Hissey- What did you learn from your counterpart, in the collaboraton?

Adam:

I think I could write a dissertation on all of the positives from this project. I'll have to set aside some time for that because it may be of some interest to some. Off the top of my head, though I will give you a tidbit.
 
The inside story on this project was speed. It's easy to lose track of that, but this property was closed on July 30th, 2001. In retrospect, it could have been even quicker. But, four years to playability wasn't a bad effort.

I really have to put my mind to this though. There was a lot to learn.

As for my counterpart, I really didn't have one. I managed the project.

[ForkaB]

In my day job for most of the past 30 years (advising large entitites in strategy and organisation), this "one head vs. two or more heads" issue has always been central.  In 99.999% of the cases, multiple heads are better than one when trying to create something or solve a difficult problem or identify and exploit an oportunity.  While the .001% of "outliers" do exist, it is futile to try to find them. Also, as you increase the complexity of the task at hand, the chance of finding somebody who can do it all diminishes geometrically.  I personally believe that designing and building a golf course is just too complex a task for any one individual to do better than in very active collaboration with others.

What Mark Hissey (thank you very much,Mark) describes is how such collaboration ought to work.  To even think about whether or not Sebonack will be as good or better or worse than what Jack or Tom (or Rees Jones for that matter) might have done is just idle speculation.  All we can know is that any individual would have designed and built a different course.

Let's enjoy Sebonack for what it is and will become over time, not for what it might have been.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Hopefully not straying too far off topic and to add to Rich's excellent post an interesting read that adds perspective on the collaboration efforts is a book by David Halberstam titled "The Education of a Coach".  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()