[jeffwarne]

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

Bob,

Does this mean that Jack won't be able to pass his design legacy to his sons?
After all those years they spent studying and playing the great courses of south Florida?

[henrye]

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 get it.  He would prefer an inferior course for the sake of not compromising?

[TaylorA]

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.

Thanks Brent - one of the reasons that the written word is often difficult to understand since we put our own inflections into it.

[Adam Clayman]

 

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.

I gotta call B.S. on this one.

[Dan Boerger]

Unless Jack's comments were somehow taken out of context, and I have no reason to believe they were, it's simply inconceivable to me that he actually believes you need to be a professional golfer (and arguably the best ever) to understand what a "golf shot should be".

[Robert Thompson]

Dan: It was a Q&A -- the only context was that I was speaking to him about golf design.

[Phil Benedict]

I think Jack's entire statement is much less incendiary than the original excerpt appeared to be.  He wasn't going out of his way to diss Doak and what he said is nothing new, whether one agrees with him or not.

[Jerry Kluger]

It makes me wonder whether Dismal River was designed with the purpose of demonstrating JN's ingenuity or with the purpose of demonstrating his ability to be a contrarian.  Obviously, part of his marketing is a claim that only a player of his caliber can design a true championship quality course - this may be an unintended slap at Doak but is it not a slap at Dye as well, whom I believe he has always admired.  

[David Stamm]

It makes me wonder whether Dismal River was designed with the purpose of demonstrating JN's ingenuity or with the purpose of demonstrating his ability to be a contrarian.  Obviously, part of his marketing is a claim that only a player of his caliber can design a true championship quality course - this may be an unintended slap at Doak but is it not a slap at Dye as well, whom I believe he has always admired.  

Interesting point Jerry. It also reminds me that, if I'm not mistaken, that JN has already had to make revisions to DR, while the 2 (SH, BN) he was trying to "answer" have not. I'm not sure what this says really, but there it is.


Another take. JN says that his comp is the land. I always thought the sign of a great arch was his ability to work WITH the land not AGAINST it, a term I tend to associate with compete.

[Tim Pitner]

It makes me wonder whether Dismal River was designed with the purpose of demonstrating JN's ingenuity or with the purpose of demonstrating his ability to be a contrarian.  Obviously, part of his marketing is a claim that only a player of his caliber can design a true championship quality course - this may be an unintended slap at Doak but is it not a slap at Dye as well, whom I believe he has always admired.  

Is it accurate to say that Pete Dye's work fell off a bit when he started paying too much attention to how professional golfers would play his courses?  

[Jerry Kluger]

JN is credited with working with Dye on Harbour Town and he has often expressed a pride of having worked with Dye on that course.  Dye did many courses after that and I don't believe that he designed a course with a professional championship in mind unless that was required by the developer.  

[Dan Boerger]

Robert - Thanks for clarifying what I thought. I've only played a number of Nicklaus designed course and, to be brutally honest, none of them were memorable. I'm in the marketing profession and I understand the power of brand -- and, like Arnie before him, the brand "Nicklaus" brings to potential investors in real estate. That should not be underestimated. Very few designers, obviously including Doak, ever had a head start like that.

[Kirk Gill]

The part of JN's comments that are both interesting and  mystifying is the notion that it is the knowledge of the shot that comes first, which leads to the design, with the land as something to be "contended" with. My thought regarding course design has always been that the land comes first, which leads to the design, which then contends with the shot.

Am I making sense?

[Rick Shefchik]

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.

I gotta call B.S. on this one.

I don't think Jack even believes this. If he did, how could he respect the work of Mackenzie, Tillinghast, Flynn, or any number of brilliant archies who were never remotely close to Nicklaus in their ability to play golf? Wouldn't it follow that only courses designed by Arnold Palmer or Gary Player -- or Tiger Woods -- could be classified as great?

[George Pazin]

Rick, it's almost in vogue these days to say things without fully thinking out the implications or logical conclusions.

Craig, you certainly have an interesting and valid take. Me, personally, I'd argue almost the exact opposite - the criticism of Rees, Fazio, or in this case, Nicklaus, is almost always specific in its content. The criticism of that criticism rarely is.

In this case, if it's bashing to dismiss what Jack says, I'd say it's at least warranted bashing.

Look at 2 of the examples he cites: TOC and ANGC. TOC was arguably designed by no one. ANGC was a combination of a great architect with lesser playing abilty and, of course, one of the greatest golfers ever, but with the expressed purpose of providing interest for both top golfers and members.

I'll agree that Jack is expressing his honest opinion, it's just not one I happen to think is remotely true, nor can even be reasonably inferred by inspection of the lists of great courses of the world.

[Steve Pozaric]

Another take. JN says that his comp is the land. I always thought the sign of a great arch was his ability to work WITH the land not AGAINST it, a term I tend to associate with compete.

I found that quote to be pretty interesting.  First, Jack is a competitor and he always has to be trying to win.  Despite the rankings, every course is unique and you really can't compete from course to course.  As competing against other architects doesn't work on a course by course basis, he therefore views his competition as the site itself.  

Second, I don't really think that this kind of competition is a zero sum game (one winner and one loser).  I interpret this almost to say that he is trying to get the most out of a given site, and, to the extent he doesn't, then he "lost."  Almost as if the competition is himself

[Craig Van Egmond]

George,

              Its just that this is nothing new, its the same old stuff that Jack spews out year after year. Its in his book and every interview pertaining to Sebonack, etc..  I think he has been very consistent about his ignorance of the one true path to golf architecture enlightenment.

             If success in this business is defined by how many ranked courses you have then Art Hills must be a failure despite having built over 200 courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

..... I think he has been very consistent about his ignorance of the one true path to golf architecture enlightenment.

Craig,

Maybe I missed it, but when did we declare there was a one true path to enlightenment, and pray tell, what the hell is it?  Selling insurance, like Pete Dye?  Playing Pro Golf? Studying LA and then golf architecture?  Reading golf club atlas?  What?! What?!! What?!!!


As to JN's comments, its possible the "land is my competition" is a Bushism, something that didn't come out quite right.  Or he could have meant competing for jobs that have great land so he can express himself, etc.  I wouldn't hang JN for that one or read too much into it.

As to his other comments, you have to realize that he has always had supreme confidence, and wouldn't have been successful without it, either in golf or architecture.  You may recall that he started out being unpopular, and worked hard at saying all the right things to be an ambassasor for golf, substituting class for Arnie's out right charisma.  Its quite possible that now that he's older, he thinks he can be a bit more honest, or use the bully pulpit, without damaging his rep, based on his overall record, which should be considered refreshing, not sad.

As to him being defensive about his architecture....hmm, someone says "I participate on golf club atlas, and I want to ask you about your architecture......"  That would make all of us defensive!

[Dan Kelly]

"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."

I thought they learned everything they know about golf-course architecture from ... Al Franken. (Pop culture reference for the middle-aged.)

[Jeff_Brauer]

One more comment, on JN's collaboration remarks.  I doubt any gca likes it.  While its interesting once in while - forgetting Tour Pros for a second, I did a collaborative design with Jay Morrish once. I learned a lot, Jay is a lot of fun, and I recall it fondly.  But, there is the theory that a camel is a horse designed by committee.  

It's entirely possible for the worst traits of both collaborating gca's to be implemented, instead of the best!  Or, like political solutions, the compromises might have just produced a muddled mess that didn't really satisfy anyone.  For example, if one gca based its design on deep bunkers and the other on shallow, would medium depth bunkers be the logical compromise?  Would those make the course stand out?

At the very least, courses based on collaborations are different than they would be otherwise, as JN says.  What would Sebonac look like if Doak took the lead on strategy and JN implemented the aesthetics?

[Tom Yost]

I thought they learned everything they know about golf-course architecture from ... Al Franken. (Pop culture reference for the middle-aged.)

LOL.  I sure miss the Al Franken decade.

Tom

[Craig Van Egmond]

Jeff,

     Sorry the enlightenment thing was sarcasm. I was trying to make the point that there is not one path and just because Jack doesn't read architecture books or doesn't seek out other architect's work doesn't make his less valid. He did work with Desmond and Pete early on.  

     I do find it sad that he couldn't find a little time in his busy schedule to see Sand Hills during the building of Dismal River, only one of the best courses built in the last 20 years.  I'm not sure if playing golf is fun for Jack anymore or has been for a while.

[Phil Benedict]

 I'm not sure if playing golf is fun for Jack anymore or has been for a while.

I don't think Jack ever enjoyed "playing" golf.  He just enjoyed competitive golf.  

[Tim Pitner]

Has Nicklaus (on his own) designed a golf course that can be considered great, something like a World Top 50 (or even 100)?

I was struck by Nicklaus' somewhat feint praise of liking the aesthetics of Doak's and C&C's courses.  I thought the idea was for aesthetics and strategy to complement one another.  Nicklaus seems to think the two can be easily compartmentalized.  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I had the good fortune to be in a conversation where it was noted first hand that Jack and his design team visited Friars Head and left very impressed. I find it normal when two men at the top of their very competitive professions when discussing their contributions to the final product to have slight view differences in who really brought what. Sebonack is a great course which I do believe improved Jacks work product going forward. I have not talked to Tom in any detail to have a feel for what he took away from the experience. Plus Tom  pipes up here any time he wishes. Go Tigers beat the cats.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()