[David Stamm]

Doak is adamant that his models are older courses, rather than newer adaptations, starting with Scotland and TOC.  JN says he draws inspiration from older courses, like TOC, PB, etc. rather than modern adaptations.

Why slam JN for having the same opinion as Tom God Doak?

 

Because the proof is in the pudding, Jeff.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I have never really understood this "you have to be a great golfer" thing, but it has been mentioned many times (Gary Player) and the pro's obviously feel it gives them some kind of edge because they can execute a perfect 2 iron, whilst we/others may end up in the lumber yard.
Personally I like the edge of someone who has built and maintained greens and even though I may not be able to hit perfect shots I can visualise them, and is not good to understand how the course is going to be played by the masses who play imperfect shot.

[Adam Clayman]

Dan, I found that comment fodder full, too.

I would suspect Tom could comeback with some cleverly worded phrase espousing the importance of not fighting the land, or at least making it look that way.

A guest of mine yesterday, an 84 yr. old retired Jewler, was in shock when I told him every inch of Ballyneal was constructed. It was in response to his comment how everything blended so naturally. Now this is a guy who probably never gave GCA a thought, in his whole life. The real treat was hearing him in the bar afterwards saying how he felt ten years younger. Only to be topped by his daughter calling, almost in tears, thanking me for taking him out.

[Garland Bayley]

This thread seems like bait, which I hope Tom Doak doesn't take.

Don't worry. Tom is a very smart man that knows how to say important things wisely.

JN and I don't share that trait.  

[Dan Kelly]

Its just the Nicklaus, Fazio, Rees bashing gets old... its like oh its Thursday lets bash Nicklaus... oh its Friday lets bash Fazio.   Let's not all be butt-boys just because someones work reflects one groups narrow definition of success.

Let me speak for myself, rather than for your mythical "group."

I've never bashed Nicklaus, Fazio or Rees -- or been anyone's "butt-boy." What an insulting phrase that is!

But I agree with Tommy Williamsen: These quotations attributed to Nicklaus are unbecoming to a man of his stature.

If you don't care to hear that opinion: Fine.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

As to your assertion that the proof is in the pudding, this thread is just another reminder that virtually every golfer looks for something different in architecture, and there is no one way to do it.

Its perfectly valid for JN (or others) to say "Who cares if we only moved 6,000 CY of earth if the shots don't set up well for good golfers?"  He designs for golfers, not for the land.   And, he does admit that he learned something from TD, basically on the use of internal contours, which he finds similar to TOC.

But any golfers opinion is just opinion, not concrete fact.  While I love Tom's stuff as well, I took a good golfer and client to a hockey game last night, and he had a pretty good dissertation on why he didn't care for TD's stuff, probably based on a players view similar to JN.  I have heard that from several other players since people have been flocking to play Tom's acclaimed creations.

It may be the same build up/tear down syndrome that all successful gca's (and others!) face, but JN's comments aren't all that unique or out of touch with what many better players feel.

This is not a critique on Tom as much as a realization that no style or architectural emphasis can accomplish everything.  You give something to get something no matter what path you follow.  If what the gca gives up isn't important to you, and what he emphasizes is, then you love the course.  If its vice versa, you hate it!  

[Craig Van Egmond]

Dan,

         That's all any of this is, opinions.  Some reporter asked Nicklaus his opinion and he gave it. While I may not agree with it, it is his opinion and I respect that. And I respect yours and Mr. Williamsens.  But, there does seem to be an appearance of 'group think" on this board, with a  few select chosen ones that you dare not speak against and that gets old.  Guess what, Nicklaus has been pretty consistent over the last 40 years and he is not going to change, so rehashing his quotes over and over again is just redundant. Same goes for Fazio.  It works for them.  Doak and CC have chosen a different path and it works for them. Good for them and good for us.

[Michael Dugger]

It is only through a website like this that someone like me can vicariously live out the '''Making of Sebonack."

Never in a million years am I going to work hand in hand with Tom Doak or Jack Nicklaus and I'll probably never set foot on the golf course.

But as someone who thinks he understands a thing or two about human nature, I get a sense of what is going on here.

For starters, Jack's comment about strategy HAS to be in regards to professional golfers, scratch golfers, etc.  I don't think there is anything so wrong about saying such a thing, I think Tom would be the first to concur the professional game is one he might not be the most familiar with.  Yet, the Matt Ward's of the world   comprise what, like 10% of the golfing public?  

So, unlike many modern golf course architects, Tom actually takes the Mackenzie dictum seriously, that being design for all players, not just the experts.

It is this reason, quite frankly, he's "God" status (nice reference Jeff B.) in my book.

I can't imagine Tom is really going to care what Jack says.  For starters, he understands how the media can spin things.

And for two, the bottomline is Tom Doak has "scoreboard."  

Pacific Dunes
Cape Kidnappers
Barnbougle
Ballyneal speak for themselves.  

When you are on top everyone wants to knock you off.

[jeffwarne]

David Stamm,
You do recognize I was being facetious

Jack used his position as the greatest player ever to enable himself to have the recognition. contacts, and financial backing to step into the golf business at the upper level.

Similar to the Jones and Fazio families being born into instant name recognition and contacts (although no doubt they had copious amounts of "in the field" experience as children and young men-which can be good or bad depending upon what you're looking at)

Given such advantages, of course they are going to turn out a few winners, especially since newcomers were given so little
chance to compete as all/most well heeled clients wanted/want a name (last name that is)architect.
Additionally, a man as determined ,connected, and competitive as Nicklaus is going to assemble a team that puts out a pretty good product.

Tom Doak is the Ben Hogan of his era, having "dug it out of the dirt", spending countless sums of money and time studying the great and not-so-great golf courses, then working from the ground up with and for creative superstars, building credibility while working and designing  and making his own contacts.
Bill Coore(and other architects of this new golden age) have
followed a similar track, although perhaps  without the same travel level Doak acquired.
There may be many who have worked as hard or harder than Doak at study,observation and travel, but have yet to have his success (kind've like Hogan at age 30)

I happen to think I'd rather hire one of the guys who spent his time mastering his trade in studying,designing, building, and maintaining golf courses at every level than the guy who spent much of his time mastering a one iron.

In defense of Jack, Tom Doak's Confidential Guide was pretty brutally honest, although I understand he softened a few later editions

[TaylorA]

So who knows more about driving a car, Richard Petty or John Kavenaugh? No contest, really. John isn't much of a driver at all is he?

So if you want to build an asphalt road, I'm sure John could build you a pretty road but if you want a great road then it should be built by a great driver. Nobody else can understand all the things that a great road needs to be.

Brent, I can't tell if you're be facetious or not, so I'm going to go with not. It totally depends on the purpose of the road. Does Richard Petty know the intricate details of stopping sight distance and long term maintenance needs? Does Richard Petty understand what the majority of the users of the road need? Can Richard Petty avoid the environmental hurdles that may need to be traversed by the road? Does Richard Petty understand what the novice or typical driver enjoys in a road? All of these are within my definition of a "great" road.

To bring it back, I don't know what Nicklaus knows and I don't know what he doesn't know. But I do know this about the numerous Nicklaus golf courses that I've played - they don't even come close to meeting my very liberal definition of "great". And that, ironically, includes a golf course called "Bear's Best".

[BCrosby]

To echo Dan Kelly, I am surprised that a man of such stature in the game would be so defensive about his architecture.

Bob

[Tony_Muldoon]

More than ever I am full of admiration for the one true genius on that project,

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/archive0105/2005/8/14/sebonack-developer-profiled.html

[Robert Thompson]

Dan,

         That's all any of this is, opinions.  Some reporter asked Nicklaus his opinion and he gave it. While I may not agree with it, it is his opinion and I respect that. And I respect yours and Mr. Williamsens.  But, there does seem to be an appearance of 'group think" on this board, with a  few select chosen ones that you dare not speak against and that gets old.  Guess what, Nicklaus has been pretty consistent over the last 40 years and he is not going to change, so rehashing his quotes over and over again is just redundant. Same goes for Fazio.  It works for them.  Doak and CC have chosen a different path and it works for them. Good for them and good for us.

Some reporter? I'm hurt.

I didn't ask just one question -- we spoke for 20 minutes on this and followed up with another phone call later. The whole issue was design -- and I must admit I was struck by the bluntness and crustiness of Jack's remarks. He comes across a bit like an old man at this point -- very set in his ways and not about to alter them. That said, he made most of his remarks standing next to a green that looked like something out of Pacific Dunes -- so maybe he can't say that he takes anything from his peers, but the work seems to demonstrate otherwise.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Sorry about that Robert,

     As much as I admire Nicklaus the golfer, he has always come across as a blunt crusty old fart in interviews I've seen/heard.  I do think he has been fairly consistent though on his opinions/attitudes.  

[Roger Tufts]

Tom Doak says that Jack has a bedrock conviction that only a great golfer can understand golf course strategy

This is true. The difference between a great golfer and a mediocre golfer has far more emphasis on the EXECUTION of the strategy, not knowledge of it.

Maybe the routine of not visiting other's courses are what limits jack's designs and creates his history of mediocre ones.

JN: Let’s put it this way, Tom Doak is not necessarily a golfer. Let’s just say I don’t think he understands what a golf shot should be. That’s not a criticism. He just doesn’t know. And that’s what I bring to a project. That’s why Sebonack turned out to be a nice golf course, because most of the strategy there is what I did. Most of the look I let him have because I like that look too.

It's almost as if Jack is saying that the way he designs his "strategies" is going out on the track and banging out shots, deciding what works for him, and going with that. I'm sorry, Jack, but I just don't hit the ball like you, and I can probably count on one, maybe two hands, the amount of people who CAN hit the ball like you. It's just not logical what hes talking about here.

[Adam Clayman]

Who remembers Tom's request not to discuss who did what Sebonack?

I think this is a good i.e. of why he asked.

Not understanding golf shots implies dictation in the opposite.

[A.G._Crockett]

This is the umpteenth time that I read quotes from Nicklaus to this effect.  They don't strike me as any less unfortunate now than the first time I read them.  

[Chuck Brown]

I find it refreshing in the day and age of the polished, packaged Tiger Woods that we have a guy like Jack Nickluas who is willing to sit down and just talk.  When you do that it is (a) interesting; (b) informative, and; (c) sometimes carelessly worded.

I don't think Jack intended any insult to Tom Doak, any more than Tom intended insult with the many things he said about Nicklaus designs in The Confidential Guide.

It can only be carelessness on Jack's part to have said that he doesn't look at anyone else's courses.  He says stuff like that sometimes.  I remember him being asked when was the last time he was on a commercial airliner and he gave a similar answer ("20 years"); I just don't think it is literally, strictly true.  But the point is made.

Remember, every Jack Nicklaus design project is not a new development with a name variation on the word "Bear"; Jack has done design work at Augusta, at the Alister MacKenzie Scarlet Course, at Pebble Beach, etc., etc.  So he is working with other designs all the time.

[Tom Yost]

Plain old marketing FUD.  Jack's just promoting his product.

[Tom_Doak]

Robert:

I want to be sure I understand your post correctly.  How did my name get injected into the conversation?  Did you really ask Jack the question you asked, verbatim, and he really started his reply with a comment about me, unsolicited?

[Garland Bayley]

"Let’s just say I don’t think he understands what a golf shot should be."

I have no problem when Jack makes such statements. He has clearly marked it as an opinion, and I can agree with his opinion or disagree with it as I choose.

"That’s why Sebonack turned out to be a nice golf course, because most of the strategy there is what I did."

I don't like statements worded like this. I prefer:

"That’s why Sebonack turned out to be a nice golf course, because I believe most of the strategy there is what I did."

In actuality, I believe that may be what Jack intended. It is just that it takes more time and effort to put the opinion marking words into your statements.

[Jason Connor]

"My competition is the land."

How many other architects would say their competition is the land!?

It seems most designers (even ones who don't practice what they preach) claim the land as their collaborator.

[Robert Thompson]

Robert:

I want to be sure I understand your post correctly.  How did my name get injected into the conversation?  Did you really ask Jack the question you asked, verbatim, and he really started his reply with a comment about me, unsolicited?

Tom: Sent you an IM relating to this. But the broad answer is there was a discussion about the collaboration at Sebonack and it led to a question about what pros bring to design and that garnered the answer. The question was cleaned up for the publication. I can send the whole Q&A if you'd like... I can't find it online.

Here is the quote that started the discussion:

SG: Your project in Long Island, New York, with designer Tom Doak called Sebonack has garnered a lot of photo spreads. Would you do another collaboration?

JN: I would prefer not to do collaborations at this point in my career. I think we did a better course with Doak than I would have done by myself and vice versa. I don’t like working with anyone. It is always a compromise. I don’t mind compromising with my own people because I know what their ideas will be, which is what I taught them in the first place. Let’s say it was a decent experience – it was not a bad experience for either one of us. Is it something I’d like to do again? Probably not. I’ve been asked – I did one with Arnold [Palmer], and that turned out to be a nice golf course. I did one with Gene Sarazen.

I do a lot of co-designs with my kids. But that’s different. I let them do all the leads and I’m the critic. I often say, ‘Why don’t we adjust this, or do that.’ But when I’m doing my own golf courses, I let them be a critic of mine. I’ve done enough courses now that I know what I’m doing and I know what I’m trying to accomplish. No one else knows what is in your head, but yet it has to get expressed by the site supervisor, the bulldozer operator, the final shaper. All those people contribute to the end product. So I let them contribute that way, as long as the end product turns out to be what I wanted, within reason.

[Brent Hutto]

Brent, I can't tell if you're be facetious or not, so I'm going to go with not.

I was actually being facetious. While a great golfer (or race car driver) will no doubt have plenty of insight into great courses (or roads) I believe that has exactly nothing to do with actually bringing forth the product from the raw ground. If Nicklaus is a great golf-course designer, it is not simply due to his unmatched playing ability but because he creates great courses. Or not.

[BCrosby]

Brent -

Bobby Jones said exactly that. There is no correspondence between playing abilities and architectural abilities.

JN knows that. Which why I find his statements above so sad. His cage has been rattled.

Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()