Fazio's GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTUE

[T_MacWood]

I had seen this new book in the stores and looked through it, and was impressed by its pleasing visuals. This afternoon I saw it again and decided to give it a speed reading in the bookstore. I found it very informative as to his thoughts on golf architecture.

I got the impression he sees golf architecture through the eyes of a construtor -- his emphasis is on BUILDING 'great' golf holes. What little analysis there is of classic designs is focused on the physical properties or construction techniques that he observes were utilized on these courses.

After I read through the first half of the book I thought the title should have been 'Classic Design vs Modern Design'-- much of the text is devoted to diplomatically degrading the works of the past and elevating the Fazio/Modern designs of today. He concludes that many classic courses were not the instant classics you find today -- that many would found wanting if they opened today.

He talks about the need to build 18 finishing holes, contrasting these modern courses to the old classics that had to work with the land and resulted in two or three mediocre or poor holes.

Framing is major point of emphasis and strategy is not discussed -- the author believes it is worthless to articulate theories regarding strategies because each situation is unique. He emphasizes playability and visual impact. He doesn't seem to be influenced by any classic holes or outstanding strategies. The great courses of the British Isles appear to have had no impact on him what so ever. Although I did talk about the 1st at Portrush, stating that the hole was very good, but that a mobile home park nearby would have prevented this hole from being built today -- kind of an odd statement, considering the mobile home park was no doubt added long after Colt was long gone.

After reading through the book, I would conclude Fazio is a master builder -- and a very artistic builder at that. But there is very little in the way strategy or strategic thought that goes into his designs and based on that I wonder if his courses will be able to sustain interest over a long period of time.

Any comments or impressions from others who have read this book?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom:

I'm wondering if you missed the thread on this topic a few weeks ago??

In any case, your post adds some detail that wasn't mentioned previously, particularly your comment on the theme of classic vs modern in the book.

I don't think many here will argue that Fazio thinks first as an artist and relegates "strategy" to some lesser priority.

As for "sustaining interest over a long period of time", this is the common complaint.  In the meantime, there are a hell of a lot of people who enjoy the artistic presentation and could care less about the "architecture".

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW and Tim:

Really good observations and good reasons to buy the book where personally I wasn't particularly inspired to before. A little depressing but nevertheless it's good to know what is going through the mind of one of the most successful architects in the world. I've always felt it's a great big game and there is definitely room in it for everything!

There are a lot of people on here who apparently feel it's necessary to proselytize the world of golf architecture. Maybe a better policy is to leave what IS today alone and to get as far away from it as possible. Maybe that is what the new Golden Age of architecture IS meant to be.

At the moment my feeling about a new direction in architecture is WIDTH with a REASON. Think for a moment about the playability of TOC. I've never been there but from what I've heard it is a measly 123 acres but for all practical purposes plays like 246 acres. And furthermore whatever it is or isn't it really doesn't sound to me like a study in "framing" or "definition".

[Bill_McBride]

I haven't read the book but I did play the worst golf hole in my 45 years of playing golf yesterday, par 4 #12 at Pine Barrens in Brooksville FL.  "Pine Barrens" is reputed to be designed a la Pine Valley.  There WAS a lot of sand.  And quite a few decent golf holes, but #12 was something else. From the green ("back") tees, total 6480, it's 457 yards. There are two greens.  The one on the left is straight away, pretty modest, maybe 30 yards deep, pretty much fits into the slope, no bunkers. The right green, which we were unfortunately playing, is another story! It is set on top of a hill about 30 degrees off line to the right, with a huge bunker cut out of the entire hill, with shrubbery and two large oak trees inside the bunker!  The pin was cut just behind the high lip of the bunker on the left side. I hit a decent tee shot, 255 yards or so, and had 202 yards straight up hill, over that bunker, shrubs, trees, etc, to a pin cut right behind the bunker lip!  To my mind this is a green/bunker designed for a short par 4 and a wedge second shot.  So I ripped a 3 wood at it and was absolutely stymied behind one of those oak trees.  Where do you suppose that hole is featured in Tom's book? Under "J for Jokes?"

[TEPaul]

BillM:

How would you feel about that long par 4 and the right hand green if they decided to call it a short par 5? Seriously.

[JB..]

I have read the book and enjoyed it very much. I recommend it especially for the group on this site. Tommy N. are you out there? This book may open up even your mind!

I think what Tom Fazio was saying is that architects such as Colt, Mackenzie, Ross, and Flynn would not build a golf course if the land didn't have the potential of creating a great golf course. The reasons he gives are simple and quite recognizable. First the technology was inferior. They moved earth with shovels and mules. Second the market for golf as a whole wasn't that great, therefore, golf courses that were being produced were only a few in comparison to today. therefore they simply picked the best land. Also, the demand of golfers and owners to play there new gem was less than today's standards. Quite often we hear architects and owners giving completion dates and opening dates. Bragging rights!This was not the case in the "Golden Age". Courses in this erra were left to mature.
We also see this in there design. These classic courses were not designed to host 30 or 40,000 rounds per season. Lastly, today's land restrictions and environmental issues present large obstacles for today's designer. While,there was no such term in the "Golden Age". Essentialy what I took Mr. Fazio to say was that to compare or try to duplicate these classics by today's standards is futile. His emphasis is on originality, the client, and creating a symbiotic relationship between the natural land and a golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

Just because Mr. Fazio doesn't try to do it, doesn't mean it's futile.

[Bill_McBride]

Mr. Paul --- given the difficulty of the approach shot, not to mention the contours of the green once on (I didn't mention that above!), it would make a super short par 5 or short par 4.  Probably better par 5 because you could give it the heroic go. But 457 yard par 4? No way.

[TEPaul]

I believe I agree with Tom Doak here in his response to the post by BH. BH's post and his points about Fazio's underlying assumptions regarding the old vs the new are interesting. Fazio may even believe that as a RULE it is not possible to compare or duplicate much of what the older classic courses were or are. Fazio might even be correct about that RULE in a general sense. However, I don't think that Fazio is correct at all in every case simply because some courses HAVE been built recently that would sort of deny his assumptions. We may not be talking about a massive amount of those kinds of courses but nevertheless they have been done and there is no reason to believe they won't continue to get done.

Probably a better way to put it would be that Fazio might be right about this as a general RULE but the kinds of things that many of us on here like and hope for are EXCEPTIONS to Fazio's RULE! And that's not dreaming-it's a FACT!

[Ran Morrissett]

The fact the Fazio himself doesn't get into the art form of using the natural intricacies of the land to produce subtle strategies is depressing.

Fortunately, at least someone within his organization does understand this, as witnessed at Forest Creek. Whoever this guy is, I wish I knew, because the courses he works on would go to the top of my Fazio to play list.

As Tom M. points out, Fazio is a master builder but doesn't that doom his courses in general to ultimately take on similar features and lack the subtle unique qualities that take a course from 'good' to 'very good'?

The Preserve in California is an example of a good course but nothing great or original. It falls under the "what could/should have been" category with me, even though technically it is  a very well constructed course.

Cheers,

[Tommy_Naccarato]

The gardner of my condo complex has done a wonderful job planting trees, bushes and other natural items making it a unique experience when walking from the car park to my unit.

Does this make him an artist?

The always insightful Tom MacWood writes:
"the author believes it is worthless to articulate theories regarding strategies because each situation is unique. He emphasizes playability and visual impact. He doesn't seem to be influenced by any classic holes or outstanding strategies."

I guess this makes the writings of Captain Thomas, Robert Hunter, Wethered & Simpson, H.S. Colt, A. MacKenzie, Horace Hutchinson, A.W. Tillinghasts, Max Behr and countless others, completely null and void.
(Does anyone want to buy a personal library of junk golf books that are meaningless to the art of golf design?)

In fear of being hung from my heals for expressing my opinion. (Think of me as a golf architecture Rasputin) I will abstain from anymore Fazio-bashing until I read the book, although I am interested to see what Fazio (As well as Tom Dumbkopf, Czar Nicklaus for Ernie Els, Davis Love, & Schmidt and Curley) is preported to be doing on a piece of land in Cabo San Quetin, Baja that is covered in sand dunes.

What type of unique framing is going to be used on a site like this?

Maybe Sandpines won't be so bad after all.

[GeoffreyC]

I spent about ten minutes leafing through the Fazio book in a bookstore a couple of days ago.  I decided to put it back on the shelf and leave it out of my collection.

I read just enough and looked at enough pictures to see that he gives the clients a consistent product but this framing stuff is so limiting and bothersome to me.  It really reminds me of the difference between the education we get in grade school versus a graduate school course.  In grade school we are shown the correct way to master the basics and we are helped along in a repetitive manner until the skills are ingrained in our being.  In graduate school we are given a problem to solve that may have one or more ways to find the solution and we are told to learn the skills necessary to solve the problem.  To my mind (and please take into account this is a critique of the philosophy NOT his specific courses that I may not have seen) this framing approach is grade school stuff that will soon get boring as our skills and mind get more sophisticated.  Strategic options and specifically lack of framing present an ever changing problem that to my way of thinking is more akin to graduate school golf. I don't see this philosophy as having anything to do with a course having 40,000 rounds per year versus 5,000 rounds per year.  I think it's sad that there is a perception that the clients feel that they need to lead the player by the hand from tee to green.  

[Czar Nicholas II]

Someone throw that man in the dungeon!

Can't you clearly see how nicely some symmetrical mounds would look on land like that?  

Isn't it just SCREAMING for a water feature?  A cascading, tri-level waterfall perhaps??

Why...it looks barren enough....if the developer has deep pockets....perhaps a perfect spot to build Shadow Creek II!

Rasputin....how many times do I have to kill you???

[Tommy_Naccarato]

JB,
I have to disagree with you in some respect. If the market for golf wasn't so great, how come there were so many great classic courses built during those times? A simple look at the courses built by Donald Ross Devereux Emmit, Seth Raynor, And countless others on the east coast where it was all happening will explain this. Further look to the young and growing west where there were once countless classics that have either been razed or changed that were also built in that era.

The golf course construction boom in the last five years is the only thing comparable, and while there are many more doing it, there are few doing it nearly as good as the Golden Age.

While you make valid points on today's Eco concerns as well as rounds played, you lose me when you say, "His emphasis is on originality, the client, and creating a symbiotic relationship between the natural land and a golf course."
-Original?
I don't think so, but that is my opinion.
-The client?
Absolutely! No one is more concerned for the feelings of the client then the Faz. Heck he goes so far as to make them feel as if they built and designed the places! Great feed for the ego of some of these developers.
-Creating a symbiotic relationship between the natural land and a golf course
If this were so, why then does he move so much earth on almost all of his projects? Why does he create each hole unto itself? Why does he have to landscape these environments or frame them then?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Is the role of Czar Nicklaus II being played by the always impressionable Mr. Buddy Hackett?

I hope so!

Time to go do some more wood chopping. (My current golf swing.)

[T_MacWood]

Tim
I did read your very objective review of Sand Ridge and the thread that followed. I wasn't trying to rehash the comments made on that thread -- I was simply struck by Fazio's book. I might add that I believe Fazio is extremely talented and evidently a very good man -- anyone who has a ton of children and works a great deal with charities is OK by me, if I'm not mistaken the procedes from the book are going to charity.

Jay
Over the last year I have come to admire Fazio's work, I enjoy his aesthetic flair. But after reading the book, I was shocked how his theories mirror exactly what his critics have been saying. If anything the book will reinforces those criticisms.

Fazio emphasizes framing and playability, and has devoted little thought to strategy. His thoughts are illustrated when he talks about Pinehurst #2, he claims the course is one of his favorites, but that because it is not photogenic it would not be considered a great course if it opened today.

Of course the old guys were limited by the site and technology, but he has overly simplistic view of the golden age. These men didn't start with heavy equipment, but by the end of their careers they certainly were utilizing machinery -- Cypress Point, Yale, Lido, Augusta National, Shinnecock and Pinehurst #2 were constructed with use of heavy equipment. The difference is they were more inclined to work with nature first, verpower her second -- they realized nature was far more interesting than anything they could create.

Another falacy, the market was not great in those days, I'm not sure how many courses are built in the US today, but there were 600 new courses built per year in the 20's. That's a hell of a lot of new courses. Many were built on rolling farm land, but is all the good farm land taken?  Others were built on more difficult sites -- Banff, Cape Breton, Yale and the Shadow Creek of its day Lido.

Fazio states that the great courses of the golden age were left to mature and he questions if the top 20 courses of today's ranking would have been so highly thought of the day they opened. His theory is they were allowed to mature and they also benefit from history. I believe he needs to study history more closely, I can't think of a single course in the top 20 built in the 20's or 30's that is better today than the day it was completed. He uses this arguement in the book to justify why he believes it is OK to redesign classic courses -- this was particulary disturbing.

What are the average number of rounds on a Fazio course? I would guess his courses get fewer rounds than a typical Ross or Tillinghast course.

No one would argue that environtmental issues have effected designers, Fazio points out 11-Merion, 7-Pebble Beach and the last 3 holes on the front at Seminole as holes that could not be built today -- I don't know, but I'm sure he's correct. I think describing his work as creating a symbiotic relationship with the natural land and a golf course is misrepresentative, I would categerize his work as creating the most beatiful and aesthetically pleasing designs in an attempt to emulate the best of nature.

I do not believe it is futile to protect and emmulate the classic courses of the past. I also believe Tom Fazio is a tremendous talent and who is able to attract the best clients in the game -- I only wish he would stop trying to downgrade the past and embrace the works and theories of those great designers who came before -- his work and the state of golf architecture would be so much better for it.

[BCrosby]

I got the book for Christmas and read it that afternoon.  A couple of random thoughts.

1.  It confirms my view that Fazio is first and foremost a landscape designer.  And a pretty good one.

2.  There is almost no mention of strategic concerns.  I can't tell whether he doesn't care about them or doesn't understand them.  It must be the former.  Even wing nuts like us "understand" strategy.  Still, it's shocking that a leading designer gives it so little attention.  I'm trying to think of parallels to other professions. What would you think of a movie director who didn't care about the plot?  

3.  Any designer so concerned with "framing" holes and aesthetic questions has condemned the owners of the course to ANGC type maintenance expenses.  If a course's greatest asset is its beauty, what is left to love if the maintenance slips?

4.  It's the only book I've seen about golf course architecture that is illustrated only with holes designed by the author.

5.  I am unaware of any architect today (good, bad or indifferent) who is so dismissive of the greats from the Golden Age.
Perhaps "dismissive" is too strong a word, but the MacK's, the Ross' et al. don't seem to be of much interest to Fazio.  He doesn't think they have much to teach him.

6.  Anybody want to buy my copy at 50% off retail?  Will negotiate. Free shipping.

 

[Jim H]

Ichecked at amazon.com to see how much I'd have to spring to buy this book and noticed this reader review (a five star rating, and the only review of the book to date):

"Unlike most books destined for the coffee table, Fazio transends the swing arc to a           beautiful look at the vision of the the ulimate playing field- the golf course. With a                                                    wonderful perspective of design, the challange of the game starts with the challange of            the course. The pictures are beautiful beyond description but the story, passion and the          theory are even more great. Tom Fazio has taken his agressiveness from the tour and           put it to the turf. This is a wonderful book for the golf enthusiast!"

Was Tom Fazio a tour player?

I'd love to play a Tom Fazio course some day.  I refrain from commenting too directly on his work because of this lack of firsthand experience.  I have to admit, though, whenever I see pictures of his work (including the one on the book cover) I most always paint this mental sound picture of lots of heavy machinery in use, some of it in reverse with the warning sounding going "beep" "beep" "beep" "beep"  ...

[David Kelly]

Tom M.,
I also read the book in a bookstore and you are exactly right.  The book is almost as if it is a parody of Fazio's philosophy written by the people here on GCA.  When I saw the subheading called Framing I even chuckled out loud because I couldn't believe he would devote so much space to it.

The book is actually the perfect format for Fazio because he seems to be designing his courses with more concern about their photogenic quality than their ability to challenge a golfer.  

[Jim H]

As has been said here so many times: Tom Fazio expertly produces a commodity that people both want and are willing to pay for.

I belong to one of the Club Corp of America social clubs in order to play some racquet sports during the winter.  They send us a slick glossy magazine every month called "Private Club." (And probably no doubt similar to its magazine cousin "Club" "Private Club" comes in one of those heat-sealed plastic wraps.) The mag is full of pictures of and articles about rich, healthy, well-fed people living and enjoying the good life.  Of course I notice the advertisements for the new golf courses and resorts.  How often you read in the colorful ads: "A Tom Fazio designed Championship Course" or "the Tom Fazio designed course..."  It just stands out in the ad copy like no other architect's name.  Money well spent.

It is not a leather chair.  It's a chair of rich Corinthian leather.  It's a brand, with associations of lushness plushness and all the other words, those associated with Tom Fazio.

[Tim_Weiman]

I completely agree with those above who suggest that, if anything, the book will only reinforce the criticisms of Fazio's work.

Still, I wonder if we've gone overboard a little in our criticisms of "framing".

Didn't Mackenzie do some awfully good "framing"?

Don't we really mean that if "framing" is all that is done, it is insufficent, but when put together with excellent strategic design, it moves the hole into a special category?

Bill McBride:

I agree that the right green on #12 at Pine Barrens makes no sense when it comes to receiving a long shot. But, it does make sense for a short pitch.

Far too often, it seems to me, holes with two greens do not offer enough variety. Their playing characterists are too similiar.

One can't say #12 falls into that category. Perhaps the key is the set up. The back tee just doesn't work for most mortals when playing to the right green.

[TEPaul]

BCrosby:

I see you are asking above if anyone wants to buy your Fazio book at 50% of retail and that you will negotiate and you will pay the shipping. OK, I'll negotiate: 60% off retail and that's my final offer. Where do I send the check?

[Bill_McBride]

Tim - since you're familiar with Pine Barrens, what is your opinion of the other goofy holes on the back nine? I'm referring to the one par 5 and to the short par 4 with the alternate fairways.  I thought the par 5 was particularly wild with that large stand of trees directly in front of the green, although next time I play the hole I'll hit my second up to that "alternate" fairway way up to the right and take advantage of the open shot into the green from that angle. I thought the short par 4 was not good because if you laid up to the safe left fairway, your pitch shot could only land on a downhill slope. "Tricky" understates those two holes. I thought the front nine was very straight forward and offered some strategic options. The back nine was just too tricked up.  But I'll play it again next year. We were rained out of the "Augusta-like" Rolling Oaks.  What's it like?

[TEPaul]

Bill:

I wish I knew what the short par 4 you're referring to above looked like because I'm not sure I understand your reasoning about what the problems are with the options on it. It sounds OK the way you describe it. If you layup to the safe left fairway what's wrong with having a more difficult pitch in even if it's to a downslope? And what kind of reward do you have if you play to the other fairway?

[Mike_Cirba]

Bill;

I can't really agree with your assessments on any of the holes you mentioned.  Unfortunately, Tom Paul (another late-nighter) already beat me to the punch by questioning your feelings about #15 at WWPB.

Let's start back at 12.  First of all, I'm not sure if playing the back tees at all of 457 yards, par four is where you want to be.  Still, for arguments sake, let's assume you're a masochist like me.  You're correct, after a solid drive you are left with a brutally difficult, heroic shot to the right hand green.  Along with the intimidating carry over sand and scrub, the green itself is smallish and severely undulating.  

So what?  There is plenty of room to play it safe up the left side of the fairway, and play a short iron third.  Who says you have to play your second shot to the green?  If you feel the shot is beyond your capabilities for the day (as it was for me also with a stiff wind in my face), then play it safely.  That is what strategic golf is all about!  

To be honest, I'd love to see Fazio create MORE of these type of difficult "half-par" holes, because so much of his work is almost patronizing to the golfer.  

I think 14 is the par five you mentioned, and you are correct.  Unless you feel that you can reach the green in two by going left, you should play away to the far rightside from where the green opens up for the third.  Again, a hole with clear options, and actually one of my favorite Fazio holes I've ever played (despite the fact that my round came to ruin here).  The left side...if you don't hit a great shot does border on unfair...it's not only ugly, but also blind from down there.  Still, great stuff!

Finally, Tom Paul is right on the money in questioning your assessment of the 15th.  The safe left side is easy to reach.  However, it leaves you with a pitch with the green sloping sharply away.  Why shouldn't it?  If you play the daring tee shot to the right, you can almost putt the ball to the green from the fairway, so direct is the shot.  

Strategy is only worthy of the name if the less risky route from the tee also carries some sort of complication to the next shot.  In my view, each of the holes you mentioned clearly meet that definition.

[Tags:]

Tags: