News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« on: February 28, 2003, 09:32:46 AM »
I think this comparison (in the next post below) of some fundamental differences in architecture principles between an architect such as Tom Fazio and Max Behr (MacKenzie et al) are interesting to consider. There’s no negative criticism intended here although I do offer a final personal opinion—it’s intended much more as just a comparison to be considered. For all I know golfers today might vastly prefer Tom Fazio’s more modern ideas and may be resistant to many of Behr’s ideas. It basically revolves around the architect’s roll in what should be offered to the golfer in the way of whose strategies any golfer should best utilize—his own or those clearly supplied by the architect---as well as how any architect goes about using land and creating a golf course in such a way that any golfer may feel the course looks more like nature’s work or the work of the architect. Or even if the consideration of one or the other is relevant.

Sorry the comparison is so long.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2003, 09:34:59 AM »
David Moriarty:

This is your paragraph from your previous post;

"Moreover, the architect's "strategy" constrains our choices, influences our decisions, and plays with our perspectives.  When it comes to golfing on a particular course, saying (to paraphrase) that 'we are all unique individuals practicing our own unique strategy' greatly overstates our indivuduality and our freedom of choice on the golf course.  Whether the golfer is aware or not, it is the architect who is the puppeteer pulling our strings, or at least the author setting out the plot points before we even have a chance to act.  Wasnt it Fazio who said something like golf is unique in that it is the only instance where an architect gets total control over the subject's (the golfer's) perspective?"

David:

Yours is a most interesting paragraph. It touches directly on some of the most basic and fundamental principles of golf course architecture and it also probably puts in as stark a comparison as possible the fundamental architectural principles of someone such as Tom Fazio compared to an architect and architectural thinker such as Max Behr (MacKenzie et al).

Behr is unusual, to say the least, but particularly because he theorized on what it was that could most ideally make golf a joy and inspiration to a golfer generally. In his words, to make the playing of the game (he preferred to call it a sport as opposed to a game) an individual’s own expression and sense of ‘freedom’.

Certainly much as been said about Behr on this website, both critically and admiringly, and even jokingly. But for now I really do want to be serious about some of the things he said that relate directly to this paragraph of yours. And I should also say that the more I’ve come to understand some of Max Behr’s principles relating to architecture and golf the more I subscribe to them. They make fundamental sense to me.

Firstly, when you say in your paragraph, "Moreover, the architect's "strategy" constrains our choices, influences our decisions”, you are essentially saying everything that Tom Fazio probably does believe in fundamentally about architecture and also the very things that Max Behr fundamentally resisted and felt was not ideal about architecture and for the ideal enjoyment of the game.

Here’s why. Behr did not believe the architect should have what APPEARED to the golfer to be a “strategy”. He believed strategies should appear to be the golfer's own. If an architect had a strategy (in Behr’s mind) it may only be when that architect was playing golf himself (even on his own golf course). Behr truly did believe that the strategy of any golfer should appear to be uniquely a golfer’s own! The reasons for that are very interesting, very fundamental and really quite simple.

It was that Behr felt any golfer would likely face a golf course less critically if it appeared to him to be, even if subliminally, nature unadorned by the hand of man. And certainly, it should be said, including natural obstacles (nature’s golf features!?) unadorned by the hand of man!

Conversely, Behr felt any golfer would face a golf course more critically (in this case obviously negatively) if it appeared to him to be, even if subliminally, obstacles put before him by another man (another golfer--an architect) instead of nature unadorned by man.

The reason he felt this way is so fascinating. Clearly he believed that “Man’s” fundamental relationship to Nature was different than man’s fundamental relationship to man! To see why those such as Behr felt that way obviously gets back to the beginnings of the original sport of golf and how it was played in actual Nature preceding man-made architecture, the hand of man and man’s influence on the creation of courses. Others would probably say this basic idea may even have had to do with the innate feeling of the Scots and their acceptance of all things natural (land and sea) simply because it was too great, too glorious, too powerful for man to even think about influencing. So they just accepted it and everything about it (including luck) without even a thought of criticism to all that it was (obviously including the weather and the wind!).

Behr felt that since man (the golfer) did feel differently about unadorned Nature vs what was put before him by another man that he would accept its challenges less critically, more willingly, more inspirationally, more freely! And clearly he felt also that Nature itself neither would nor could have created some formulaic prearranged “strategies” with the intention of playing the opponent in a game of man’s making!

So you can see what some of the reasons were to Behr (MacKenzie et al) to make architecture (that which is man-made on a golf course) appear to look as if it was not architecture at all.

This is where things like MacKenzie’s ideas on camouflage come into it. MacKenzie used ideas in camouflaging in his constructed architecture not so much to trick or deceive a golfer’s decision making and golf shots (although clearly it had that effect) but to camouflage, to hide from the golfer the fact he’d made anything at all!

That’s much of what the “look” of architecture was to be and how that was believed to be more of an inspiration to a golfer.

But then the next part—the strategies a golfer used, the decisions that occurred to him, and the consequences of those decisions—and when you said, “the architect's "strategy" constrains our choices, influences our decisions, and plays with our perspectives.” Again, if it can be seen that an architect believes, as does Fazio, that there actually is or can be an “architect’s strategy” that any golfer should conform to, then in that case an architect really does appear to be dictating something to any golfer (a strategy) and does appear to be constraining his choices and influencing his decisions.

That’s the very thing, the very perception on the part of the golfer (and architect) that Behr (and MacKenzie et al) were trying so hard to avoid or to disguise. Again, they felt if the golfer perceived the challenges to be just nature unadorned by man that golfers would inherently feel they were finding and creating their very own strategies since one might assume that Nature itself was not interested in the “formulaics” of the game of golf; that Nature was nothing more than randomness anyway, and that frankly Nature probably had better things to do with her time and efforts than to play the “formulaic” architect to some game of man!

And then Behr went even further, and theorized if these things were true and if they were valid that even things such as “penalty” and “risk and reward” would also be looked at differently by a golfer if he perceived them to be unadorned Nature instead of some obstacle put before him by another man (another golfer—an architect!).

It may seem a stretch to some (but not me) that Behr then theorized sort of a “glass half empty/ glass half full” or an optimist/pessimist comparison that if a golfer felt, even subliminally, that if the obstacles before him were Nature’s, not man’s, that he would then look at their challenges more as an inspiration to overcome.

Behr believed that if a golfer felt, even subliminally, that the obstacles that challenged him were perceived to be man-made that he would perceive them as more a mirror image of his own faults or possibly even that another man may not have the same kind of right to challenge him so powerfully as Nature could! Again, fundamental evidence of the interesting distinctions between Man's feeling about his relationship to Nature vs his relationship to Man! And so he was apt to face man-made challenges more negatively perhaps and with less  inspiration and enthusiasm or freedom of his own individual expression!

And so finally, it may be that an architect such as Tom Fazio, at least in the eyes of a Max Behr or perhaps MacKenzie (et al), as he attempts and even admits to being the ultimate "puppeteer" (as you say) who controls the choices and destinies of golfers may be seen to be far more arrogant than any architect needs to be.

Fazio admits to rearranging nature in such a way that he doesn't even see the necessity or the point of hiding his architectural hand. Many say, though, that Fazio is very good at creating architecture that looks pretty, that's picturesque, that mimics nature in the way of prettiness somehow; but again, if he actually does admit to attempting to be the one who appears to control the choices and destinies of golfers instead of Nature itself, then one might say he feels comfortable putting himself in a league with Nature itself. Anyone might see a real arrogance in that attitude, or perhaps even stupidity.

Many believe and say, though, that the work of an architect such as Fazio with what he has done and how it's been received can be described as extremely pretty and picturesque.

But, for what it's worth, Behr even had something to say about that in 1927 before an architect like Tom Fazio was born.

Max Behr said;

"We are too apt to mistake that which is pretty, or picturesque, for the beautiful. Prettiness, although pleasing, is a transient thing incident to the fancies of the moment; but beauty rests upon the fundamental---it's lineaments are the surface revelation of a perfection that lies beneath. Where beauty is lacking there must likewise be a lack of intelligence. Indeed beauty may well prove to be the economic solvent to that continual evolution in the way of innovations and alterations to which most all golf courses are subject. If the holes have been advantageously routed in the beginning, beauty should then be the ideal to be striven for in construction, for beauty practically always accompanies economy of structure. When we perceive it we first become aware of truth; and only in the presence of truth do we recognize stability and permanence."
Max Behr 1927

To be continued…





« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2003, 09:45:03 AM »
Great post (on the other thread too).

Where are you getting all this Max Behr gold?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

TEPaul

Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2003, 10:10:34 AM »
GeorgeP;

I'm getting it from Max Behr himself. He's speaking to me from across the great divide. And oddly, he's speaking to me in numbers although they become translated into text sometimes and voice sometimes. Either way he's speaking to me.

The Shackelford/Miller book, "The Art of Golf Design" as well as some other of his articles don't hurt either.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Roger Murdoch

Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2003, 10:37:07 AM »

I'm a novice in the golf architecture history circles so please behr (ha ha ) with me.  Has Max Behr ever built any really interesting golf courses on his own. I understand that he has written some very interesting material. Did he build any good courses or was he unable to transfer the knowledge of course architecture into the ground. The thing that always amazes me is the ability of the architects to ACTUALLY BUILD and transform their vision into reality. There are some who have the ability to write and regergitate material in an interesting manner, but the thing that seperates them from architects is transforming a raw piece of ground. They use their principles and ideas, while taking a risk and opening themselves to severe critizism. The true benchmark of a good architect, would be the product of an excellent course that has stood the test of time. Was Max Behr one such individual ?  

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Slag_Bandoon

Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2003, 11:52:12 AM »
Max Behr used principles, Tom Fazio uses principal.  That's the difference.   (Sorry, just a joke. I've played none of their courses; only read their words)

TomPaul, I'm sure TommyNac will come swashbuckling through here aghast that you put Fazio and principle in the same sentence.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

Pete Lavallee

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2003, 12:03:21 PM »
Lakeside Golf Club, in L.A., and Rancho Santa Fe CC, in San Diego, are two Behr courses that are still highly regarded. Both held up quite nicely in recent years when the SCGA Amateur was held there.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"...one inoculated with the virus must swing a golf-club or perish."  Robert Hunter

TEPaul

Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2003, 12:18:54 PM »
Yes, he did build in Southern California and TommyN, Yancey Beamer would have more to say on that--but from what I've heard most of the Behr courses (he didn't do many) have been changed, unfortunately. But his ideas I hope will be enduring--they should be, in my opinion. The single greatest problem to understanding Max Behr is his writing style was one of the oddest and most labyrinthian anyone has ever seen.

Behr's architectural philosophy put a premium on width--he really didn't believe in rough and did believe apparently in hazard features and such randomly throughout fairway space creating interesting strategic "lines" (of "charm"--including his well known "line of charm" which was a bunker or such exactly in what he called the golfer's "line of instinct" which generally was the exact line to the target and where the player instinctively wanted to hit the ball thereby basically inducing the golfer to make his own decision, not the architect's, from a number of choices).

Again, he's hard to understand because of his writing style (which is a bit like a man on a number of interesting mind enhancing substances) but you all can take the Max Behr graduate course right here on Golfclubatlas and you can become a PHD and a Dr. of Behr!

Master students of Behr have been known to study his articles all winter and four ball groups of his converts have been known to tee it up in the Spring and scream at the top of their lungs on the first tee, "Free at last, Free at last, Thank God Almighty we're free at last".

This, of course, is due to their freedom from boring architectural shot dictation and Tom Fazio induced strategic one dimensionalism! Then those four ball groups have been known to hit one ball 90 yds left, one 90 yds right, one down the middle, and one somewhere else and eventually converge at the green and discuss where they'd been, what happened and how many strokes they'd taken.

These converts say it's the only way to play the game!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

DMoriarty

Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2003, 02:01:02 PM »
TEPaul

I hesitate to post at all, at least at this point in time, because I don't want to get in the way of your train of thought.  Plus, I don't think my views have ever been confused with Fazio's before and I am rather enjoying viewing the world from the perspective of a Fazio disciple-- I feel like a Inspector Clouseau going undercover and accidentally stumbling into the enemies deepest and darkest secrets.  

Here is a question, though, to help you on your way.  What do you and Behr say to someone like Rich Goodale?   (Sorry to drag you into this Rich . . . but I will.)  Rich is golf's version of Nietzsche's ubermann.  He has transcended nature, convention, and the constraints of subjectivity.   It matters not to Rich whether a hole plays over the ocean or over a garbage dump, for Rich realizes that for his purposes these hazards dont even exist.  Rich can see through and beyond all that stuff and totally focus on his own self-imposed destiny.  In effect, by shear will and concentration, Rich has blocked out all else except for his own self-made golf hole.  He is both golfer and architect, object and subject.  He has simultaneously destroyed and created the golf hole into nothing more or less than a two hundred yard carry with a driver.

On the one hand, I would think that Behr would abhor someone like Rich, because Rich discards the naturalness that Behr so loves.  On the other hand Rich seems to have gotten to where Behr is trying to head (at least in your paragraph); like Behr, Rich believes that strategies are the uniquely the golfer's own.  Rich is in control, not the architect.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Objective Observer

Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2003, 02:11:57 PM »
TEPaul

If there is one consistent thought or theme I believe gets overblown on this site is the belief that Fazio courses contain no strategy.  I think that Fazio certainly errs on the side of playability - to a fault at times - but the belief that his designs require no critical thinking is an oversimplification.  Truthfully, there may be a few ugly ducklings in his portfolio, but in my experience he consistently delivers well thought out designs that are enjoyable and yes, beautiful.

A side bar to this is the belief that Fazio simply refuses to use nature or incorporate the natural characteristics of a site into his designs.  He is a master at creating something from nothing, Shadow Creek and Bighorn for example, but I have played Fazio courses where nature and the natural characteristics of the land predominate throughout the course.  I for one do not feel anymore or less restricted at a Fazio course than I do at a Dye, Nicklaus, Smyers, Strantz, et all.

The hyperbole and marketing that surrounds his designs certainly steps on a few toes and may leave a bad taste in the mouth at times, but Tom Fazio is a tremendous golf course architect and builder in my opinion and deserves better than what he generally receives here.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2003, 03:00:49 PM »
Tom Paul,
I need to get the name of the winery, whose Merlot your drinking. I'm thinking it had to be at least a two-bottle night, and where Suzie probably went to bed really early, knowing what kind of night it was going to be!:)

HOWEVER, you are, as always, very astute and precise in your observations and descriptions of Max Behr. In fact, I'm starting to really come-up with a slew of the time and method comparisons of Scientology to our studying of Max Behr--I hope it isn't that extreme. I'm no Scientologist nor wish to be! (and as Dave "Shivas" Schmidt and Jerry Seinfeld would say, "Not that there is anything wrong with that!") But the truth is that Behr is THAT addicting!

Pete, RSF and Lakeside are nothing like the originals Max Behr had created. In fact, there is NO real Max Behr left. It is all gone. You can't even find much of it in pictures! A perfect example of the Modernist attacking the Visionary at the very core of his being--his own work. Its like the genocide of a certain type of art. Its Creation vs. Destruction. Its not that it was planned that way either. I think it comes from the fact it was completely ignored. Even I could begin to tell you which course of his might have been his best works. I could only go off of the words of MacKenzie; old photos and imagination of how it really played.

But this defined destruction didn't completely destroy the words of Max Behr, because, when Max Behr wrote, he wrote of the works of all of his comtemporaries on the whole, messrs, MacKenzie, Hunter, Thomas, Wilson and more. Their works live on--well sort of.

I wonder what Rees Jones work would be like if he really understood the work of Max Behr.

I wonder the same about King Fazio.

Not enough glad-handing in the world could ever catch-up to the extreme and intense knowledge of the man. It's like free-basing Golf Architecture.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2003, 03:09:26 PM »
Quote
Pete, RSF and Lakeside are nothing like the originals Max Behr had created.

Not that I doubt you one iota, Tommy - you are the star researcher on these issues - but are you just saying this or have you researched it, re these two courses?  I know absolutely nothing about any of this - I only ask because I played Lakeside a LOT back in high school - ok, that's almost 25 years ago now, and I have no idea what was there to begin with.. but at least back then, it sure seemed "old" and "natural"... there were no obviously modern holes... and I was there again recently for a lunch, just looking around nothing looked to be changed much... Then re RSF, I just played that the one time last spring, and I got the same feeling...

If nothing from Behr is left, well... in each case what's there now is pretty damn quirky and pretty damn great.... so it is blowing my mind trying to imagine what used to be there!

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2003, 03:13:53 PM »
Mr Paul -

You have tied together much in this awesome missive.

I was watching Shell's Wonderful World of Golf one night, Couples v. Calchavecchia at the Preserve. From time to time they showed some prerecorded flyovers with Tom Fazio offering commentary on his work. I had never heard Mr. Fazio speak or read anything by him, so I was a little bit surprised to hear him talk mostly about how the golfer might gaze down onto the framed landing area from the elevated tee and by doing so know just what to do. I am almost certain that he said "signature view" at some point.

My first reaction was that Mr. Fazio was filled with contempt for golfers, who in his view were either incapable of or unwilling to make decisions on the course.

Then I realized that any golfer would be ecstatic to play the holes in the manner that Mr. Fazio had described. Just hit your ball over here, and then hit it onto the green. He really wanted the best for us on his courses - a chance to go low, the certainty of a panoramic vista, a warm feeling.

The more I hear, the more fascinated I become with Fazio, the accusations of anti-strategy, Shadow Creek, the signature views. He seems to have done some sort of 360 degree twighlight zone crossover thing in the field of golf course architecture. By saying things like "this bunker is on the left side of the fairway so you'll know to hit it over there to the right" he seems to have repudiated all traditional notions of strategy and is clearly pushing boundaries.

By far the most facsinating part of Mr. Behr's theory is when he describes the possibility of encountering a horrible mirror image of our hateful selves on the golf course. When I wander amongst the dreadful, downright Homeric rockpiles that line the fairways at Belgrade Lakes, I feel complicit and dirty.

It seems like the more a golfer is having his emotions manipulated by the "signature view", the less time he has to anthropomorphize a bunker.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2003, 03:15:16 PM »
Tom,
The cynic might comment that Behr was saying:  "Listen boys, if you don't want the public to criticize your work make it hard for them to tell what is Nature's and what is not".
  
There are many ways that land is used and many styles of architecture with admirers for each. I'm not going to judge the merit of one style over the other. I do prefer to not be force fed from the tee but I also can't fault an architect for making the decision for me or limiting me to one way or the other, as long as they make there offering challenging. There are some very good courses in New England that limit your tee choices by dint of their limited acreage but many of these same courses possess interesting terrain that the architects used so well.
Perhaps it is easier to mold the whole picture from a plan than it is to search out the existing features. It is probably less time consuming with fewer variables and fits more neatly into the financial structures and considerations.

If the tee book was full at Pac Dunes but I could get on at Pine Barrens (forget the geography), it wouldn't make me cry.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2003, 03:21:55 PM »
David Moriarty;

You ask what do I and Max Behr (now that were momentarily communicating) say to Rich Goodale? Well, first, let me cite a recent remark by Rich.

"I fully admit to the charge of being narcissisistic.  The way I look at any hole, from 16 CPC to #1 at my local track is compeletely unique.  But, so is yours, counsel.  We are all individuals, who look at all things, particularly golf holes, very differently, depending on all the factors I have listed above.  Based on this look, which varies every time we play each hole, or even each shot, we choose, implicitly or explicitly, a "strategy" for that hole or that shot.  Then we try to execute that strategy."

David, my good man--it looks to me as if Rich has come home to the essence of architecture, to all that Max and I and Geoff and TommyN and the others want any golfer to feel. Basically and philosophically we have Rich, by his own admission (the individuality of a golfer to find and use his own strategies), right where we've wanted him because he now agrees with Max's architectural principle.

Now all we have to do is explain to Rich that there's far more freedom of individual expression to a strategically multi optional Max Behr style golf course than there is to a course that's a one dimensional "architect's strategy" style of golf course! (One needs only to spot one of those little booklets in the pro shop by the architect explaining to all golfers exactly how to play his golf course to spot a one dimensional "architect's strategy" style of golf course). And of course, there's very little possibility Rich would not see the obviousness of that.

And as for the other interrelated subject of this issue--an architect's use of naturalism in his architecture compared to another architect's trumpeting all the marvelous things his dozers have moved and how gorgeous his flagrant architect's hand appears to be---well, on that note all we need to do now is open Rich's eyes to the obvious differences.

It shouldn't be that hard to get him to see the vast differences in this vein between the inconguity to Nature of waterfalls and babbling brooks and conifers in the Las Vegas desert compared the natural or extremely site natural appearing dunes and such at a Pacific Dunes or Friar's Head.

So Rich, the everlasting contrarian, has finally admitted the his philosophic similarity to the man he's heretofore criticized as a hack and charlatan--Max Behr.

He may even try and weasel out of his admission even before we have the chance to open his eyes to his philosophic essence but if he does that it will be too bad for him.

And all we will be able to do is watch him slither away in shame.

Of course there's been total silence on the Mucci front which is never a good sign for Pat Mucci.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2003, 03:48:00 PM »
JimK:

I just asked Max what he thinks regarding what you said in your last post about what the cynic might comment about him. Max only said the cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing----and then, I'm very sorry to say--Max vanished! I suppose the communication is over for now--the seance or whatever it was is finished. I hope he comes again so we can continue to delve into the epicenter of golf's architecture where freedom of strategic expression reigns in a universe of naturalism.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #16 on: February 28, 2003, 04:13:08 PM »
TomHuckaby,
Given Lakeside's location--right next to and over a river bed (NLE) the soil provided some really interesting fearures from which to work and create. From the aerial photos as well as old shots of the course, Lakeside had a lot of sandy waste areas that are now gone or are overplanted with trees. Thanks to what seems like a early version of El Nino, Maybe the same one that got Riviera, Pasadena and a lot of others, two of the really neat holes across the river are gone.

From there, just wait for your edition of Lost Links to get to your door step. It will tell you more about what was once there and what is now not.  

Also, do not forget that Damian Pascuzzo is the club's consulting architect. I'm sure he too, is a Max Behr Specialist.



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Architecture principles compared, Fazio & Behr
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2003, 07:54:37 AM »
Michael Moore said;

"The more I hear, the more fascinated I become with Fazio, the accusations of anti-strategy, Shadow Creek, the signature views. He seems to have done some sort of 360 degree twighlight zone crossover thing in the field of golf course architecture. By saying things like "this bunker is on the left side of the fairway so you'll know to hit it over there to the right" he seems to have repudiated all traditional notions of strategy and is clearly pushing boundaries."

I'm bringinng this thread back up because I think what Michael Moore has said here (quoted from post #14 on this thread--you should reread the whole post) is extremely important to consider and discuss.

If even a single principle of Tom Fazio IS anti-strategy somehow I think we should discuss why and how it is and if and when that becomes more clearly understood we should then perhaps pursue a discussion of Michael Moore's feeling about what all it means today in architecture or for the future.

Tom Fazio is undeniably the most or one of the most recognized and popular architects in the world today. It would appear his golf courses are popular with golfers generally or is that even true? Some say his courses generally aren't all that interesting to play on a continual basis.

Whether that's true or not we should begin to explore if in fact Fazio's overall principle is somewhat anti-strategy or even if one of his principles is in some way that a good architect today can manipulate a natural environement so well that golfers can't even notice if its been manipulated--and think somehow that the thing Fazio's dozers did is the way it always was. Or even if whether a golf course that appears somewhat natural is of any importance to golfers any more.

Is it possible that the things that some Golden Age architects feared could happen--ie--a lack of strategy in architecture and a lack of naturalism in architecture has happened and if so that it may not have ever mattered that much anyway?

Or is it more likely that golfers generally will accept whatever they're given and they may generally just not realize what they're missing--ie--far more strategy and naturalism?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »