Fazio's GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTUE

[Craig_Rokke]

Too much artificial mounding.

[Craig_Rokke]

Pamela Lee, that is.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Mike C.

I didn't say "I won't read it"; I said, "I have NO DESIRE to read it".

See the difference?  

I guarantee that I'll read it eventually. In fact, maybe I'll review it in my column at www.scoregolf.com  in the very near future.

I wholeheartedly agree that listening to opposing views is very, very educational. And, with that, I've always been a proponent of getting the Fazio's, Jones' and Hills' involved with this website somehow... although we can almost now be sure that will never happen.

And Tim.

I agree with you as well -- the majority of golfer's today are "tricked" by beauty. Like Fazio, they seem to think that a beautiful course is the best course.

I wish I knew why. I don't.

[T_MacWood]

Most people would prefer White Zinfandel to a wine with depth and complexity or would choose Pamela Lee over an articulate beautiful woman who may not be as physically blessed (enhanced) or Romance novel to great work of literature. Just because the masses prefer something isn't a reason for praise or justification. Golf courses should not designed for the lowest common denominator.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

I'm afraid that it will be me she is dating if it between the two of us getting her name correct!  The former Ms. Pamela Anderson, married Motley Crue drummer Tommy Lee, becoming Pamela Anderson Lee.  She's evidently quite fond of the surname as well, having kept it in place after divorce.

Craig;

In what I believe was a move clearly meant to inspire today's golf course architects to greater emphasis on natural features, the former Mrs. Lee had her own symmetrical mounds reduced ealier this year.  

Rees Jones...are you listening...Rees.....Rees???.....REEESSS!!!??

Jeff;

I understand the distinction you make between not reading Fazio's book and not wanting to read it.  I'm sure it will be scintillating, however.

I understand Tom Paul is planning to use his copy as a cure for his frquent insomnia.  At least he won't need to stay awake for the visiting Ms. Anderson Lee.  

[Jeff_Mingay]

This reminds me... last year, Beach Grove G&CC near Windsor hired Canadian architect Bob Kains to renovate their course "in the style of Stanley Thompson", considering the course has long been thought to be a Thompson design. [I have since uncovered evidence that Beach Grove was actually laid-out, circa 1921, by Dev Emmet and only constructed by Thompson, Cumming & Thompson. Another story, for another time.]

In short, the course occupies a very small property that has, since 1921, been overrun by trees. Where several tees, and portions of fairway are literally canopied, you're actually playing through "tunnels".
Although the green surfaces and their original shapes are nothing to write home about (very simple), there are still some interesting potential hole locations that aren't being utilized because the greens have shrunken significantly.

The focus of Kains' renovation work, however, was the reconstruction/addition of (peripheral) Thompson/St. George's style bunkers throughout the course.
[No more than a handful of trees were removed, nor were any greens or fairways expanded (?).]

With the bunker reconstruction, the appearance of the course has changed (improved?). But the strategy and/or interest of NOT A SINGLE HOLE was improved; not in the slightest.
Every hole -- even the par 5 fourth, where Kains' added yardage with the construction of a new green -- plays exactly the same as it did prior to the renovation.

Of course, the work wasn't cheap either.

Still -- and most importantly, I guess -- the club membership is extremely happy with the work completed... because the bunkers look fancy, with new white sand in them?

Boggles my mind...  

[JohnV]

Tim,

Prestwick does have some beautiful views and framing, it is just that it usually is between you and the hole.  

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom MacWood's last post above sums it up beautifully!

[jglenn]

The continuous cycle of the beauty and strategy debate comes and goes, and now it has returned.  This time with the help of Fazio’s new book, and with Mark Fine’s “The Ocean Effect”.

The question I had asked Mark, and which I now ask you, is: Should exterior elements, such as an ocean or a vista, influence ones perception / evaluation of a golf hole?  Should the inner beauty of the hole itself also exert such and influence?  Or should the golfers be merely concerned with the "strategic" design of the golf hole itself, in the Sports Field point of view?

My answer would be a resounding YES.  Golf courses are as much landscapes as they are sports field.

The landscape is the universal and omnipresent setting that all golfers appreciate, whereas strategy is far more personal and fleeting.

As much as an architect may claim to design a “strategic” golf hole, such a claim is not for him to make.  Golfers make-up their own strategy, here and now.  Strategy is in the eye of the beholder.  The delicate balance of options necessary for true strategy can rarely be predicted, planned for, or controlled.  It just happens.

What’s an architect to do?  He can’t control the weather, the firmness of the ground or the speed of the greens, the length or accuracy with which a golfer hits the ball, the situation of a match, the aggressiveness of a golfer, his club selection, the way the golfer has been hitting the ball that day, the set of tees the golfers decides to use, etc... etc...  All the architect can do is to place a bunker in a certain location, where he hopes it will come into play for some of the golfers, some of the time, in some situation.  But then, should he move the bunker a few yards to the right, it will also come into play, but for some other golfers, some other time, in some other situation.

It can almost be said that an architect can sprinkle hazards and slopes at random, throughout the golf hole.  The end result would still be “strategic”, but once again only for some golfers, some of the time, in some situations.

The potential for strategy exists in every hole, no matter how it is planned.  The problem arises when the architects decides to place hazards PURPOSELY out of play, both physically and psychologically, for whatever reason.  This often happens, and unfortunately seems to be a modern tendency.  And tendency which we critisise, myself included.  But aesthetics is not at fault.  It's simply bad design by someone who's priorities are mixed up.  This does not mean that bunkers out of play are bad design: Put a great looking bunker on a hill for aesthetics, even if it's out of play.  That's good design.  Just don't put a bunker out of play simply because you don't want it in play...

Anyway, I digress.  

All an architect should do is design a hole that she believes might offer the most potential for strategy.  Diagonal hazards play this role well.  So do doglegs or Cape holes.  A framing bunker way out of play does not.  But for the most part, golfers simply move about the property and, every now and then, a sequence of events occurs that creates a strategic situation.  Architects have very little control over when and where that happens.  Some control, but not much.

The aesthetics of a landscape is an entirely different animal.  An animal the can be created, discovered and adopted more readily on a golf course than anywhere else, as golf courses are one of the only landscapes where the users progresses in such a predicable itinerary, and why the age-old concept of the picturesque – and of framing – is so appropriate.

Beauty, while also in the eye of the beholder, does not care what your handicap is or how far you hit your drives.  You don’t need to be a scratch player to enjoy a scenery.  A lake or a hillside that can only be strategic for a few can still be beautiful for all.  

And, of course, aesthetics or strategy does not come at the expenses of one another.  They co-exist.

Unlike strategy, however, aesthetics relies on the architect rather than the golfer.  It is up to the architect, and him alone, to find this beauty, or to create it if necessary.  Natural is not a synonym of beautiful.  Artificial is not a synonym of ugly.  Beauty can be controlled, predicted, and planned. It must.

It won’t always “happen”.

This is way the effort of an architect should be more concerned with beauty than with strategy.  

Trust strategy.   Let it be.  Don’t overthink it.

It’ll happen.

You’ve got more important things that need your tending.

[jglenn]

Oops.. (I did it again!)

I POSTED THE ABOVE MESSAGE AT THE WRONG SPOT.  PLEASE REFER TO THE NEW THREAD ENTITLED "BEAUTIFUL STRATEGY".  THANKS.

Ran, please feel free to delete this post.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

Do you really mean to say that "Just because the masses prefer something isn't a reason for praise or justification"?

I would point to Robert Muir Graves and Geoffrey Cornish "Golf Course Design", Chapter 15 "Golf course Financing" for a rebuttal.

"Golf", they write, "is a business venture and must be treated like one".

You and I might prefer standing in the landing area and trying to figure out where to hit our second shot over the Cardinal bunker on #3 at Prestwick, but there are an awful lot of people who prefer something clearly and beautifully laid out in front of them.

Beauty, like sex, sells. Brilliant architectural design, like that fine wine you refer to, simply has more limited appeal.

I hope architects of the "renaissance" school will thrive.  I hardly want to discourage their efforts.

But, the bottom line justification for creating beautiful or pretty courses, is simple: people, in fact many people, like them.

[T_MacWood]

That is exactly what I meant and I do not drink White Zinfandel. MacDonalds sells too, but I'm not going to buy the MacDoanld's cookbook. And with all due respect to Graves and Cornish, would you go out of your way to play a course designed by either man?

Sure golf is a business and so is wine making and movie making -- but as an educated consumer, I appreciate a thought provoking golf courses, a modestly priced well-made wine and movie with an interesting story and fine acting (not that Pamela Anderson isn't a tremendous talent ).

I do not believe beauty and strategy are mutually exclusive.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom:

I think we probably covered this topic......for now!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim,
I appreciate everything you are saying, but don't take the Cornish & Graves book too seriously. Graves doesn't seem to follow a single theory of it in his works out here. while the book may be interesting from a development point, I can take you to three courses out here in SoCal that you will be able to see if he followed any of the written word. (He didn't)

Also lets not give creedence to a man that has wreeked havoc on some of the great courses in the game out here in the west.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy N:

I'm not really too familiar with the work of Graves and Cornish.  Actually, I purchased the book based on Geoff Shackelford's review, at Amazon, if I remeber correctly.

I do think the book has its strengths, though some might not like the text book feel of it.  The section on financing projects probably doesn't state anything that isn't obvious. But, it does provide a "checklist" of things to think about. It's a cold reminder of the economic side of the art form we love so much.

I have played La Purisma which is featured in the design exercises towards the end of the book. Those exercises aren't bad. You might like them.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim,
If you were to give that book to Jeff Bradley and ask him to compare it to the way he constructs bunkers he would die laughing.

I have the book, matter of fact, I have reviewed the book for the local golf ragazines when it came out a few years back. It can be considered a text book for C&G's Architecture 101 class at Harvard, but it is obvious that in the mimilists scheme of things a well as practicing what you preach (Or in this case write) I can show you two courses that were built before and after the book was written to prove my point. I guess what I'm saying is that it is a good resource book, but if the authors don't really follow it, how accurate can it be?

You might remember a post that I did earlier this year where I referenced some information out of the book for the California Greens Method of Construction. BY, Tom Doak, and several other architects contested that description that I posted.

While everyone might have their ideas of it, the C&G description wasn't too different from the USGA method, which we all know is in fact much different.

[redanman]

Late as ever, I have nearly finished this book thanks to a bad cold sitting me down,  and have finally read this thread.  I think Fazio knows and understands his clients.  The experience of golf is what most of the people new to the game want, isn't it?

The current crop of maturing Baby Boomers want to leave their mark wherever they can and Tom Fazio is their vehicle in the world of golf architecture and land development.  I certainly wish that he hadn't put the history of golf architecture in such a negative vein, that's a lot of overcoming to do.  

I really do need to play Shadow Creek, Victoria National  and will play Galloway here soon to see his best.  Pine Barrens is probably the best of his courses I have played.  But most of what Fazio's clients want is what he unabashedly gives them in the book.  It is almost like a sales brochure in a way.  But his services cost more than White Zin and McDonalds!  

[Lowdraw]

Thanks: Tom MacWood... now, what a compare and contrast this is to Eddie Hackett's oeuvre.  N'est pas?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I toured not played)Tom's new "Fazio at Stonebriar" in far north Dallas twice this week with staff.  After reading his book, and reading this website, it gave me a new perspective of his work.

First, my former impressions:

1. Great guy personally.

2. Great salesman to get millions of dollars for landscape and hardscape to fully realize his works of art. I have heard that, despite his fame, he humbly approaches every client with a portfolio of his works, and explains each as if some developer in the golf business hasn't heard of Shadow Creek! This, in comparison to the egos of the other big (and not so big) guys usually sells the job.

3. Great artist.

4. Really good at details like drainage, access to tees, greens, and fairways, that other big (and not so big) names don't get as well, despite big fees.

5. Jumpstarted career (or revitalized) by realizing that signature courses were just too difficult in early 80's, and set out to counter trend with playable signature courses.

6. See above, but substitute "traditional looking courses" for playable ones. In fact, if I had one criticism of Fazio, it was that he moved so much dirt to create a low profile look!  I recall seeing Golf Club of Tennessee while doing Springhouse in Nashville - it was startling in the minimalism of its greens, at least compared to the highly contoured designs of the rest of us at that time.

This, after being influenced by his radical (for the time) grading and feature shaping at PGA National.  His use of a variety of features - like grass bunkers, or grass lead ins to sand bunkers really convinced me that I could do something on my own - unrestricted by the "old" thinking of my former employers. (sorry to all involved)

7. Great integrated contouring in his fairways. Those of us who work on plans often draw that fairway edge and then think of the fairway and rough as two elements - fairways flat, rough with mounds, ridges, etc. Also, more roll in fairways generally than other archtiects typically think about.

Fazio, (I suspect in the field) contours without regard to any edges. Grading wall to wall as he does solves the problems of "where to stop perimeter mounds/contouring".

8. First to really work at hiding cart path. At some private clubs, his paths are, in my opinion too far from the fairway to really be useful, but he taught us how to hide them, and itegrate them with an offsite drainage collection system as well.

Actually, viewing Stonebriar didn't change any of those impressions.  Having played World Woods, Shadow Creek, and Flint Hills among his most recent works, I didn't see a lot startlingly new. But, reading of his emphasis on framing, I did notice some details I had missed before:

1. Every - and I mean every (even a 145 yard par 3) fairway is bowled out in the middle. Additionally, there is always a catch basin just in front of the tee so he can pitch the fairway to the tee for better visibility.  And the center of the valley is always right on line with the intended line of play for a directional device.

While attractive, and certainly acheiving the goal of framing, I came to wonder if one perched fairway might not have been the most memorable hole on the course.

2. The bowled fairways are created by excavation to the lowest point possible, allowing for a main drain line underneath, and pushing the dirt out to the sides to create the valley. While he moves a lot of dirt, you have to hand it to him - this is the cheapest, most efficient way to do it. Going down, say 5 feet and raising each side 5 feet is preferable to mounding 10 either side.

3. He does not mound.  He builds long ridges with very little variation on top. In north Texas, and probably most places, this is a more natural looking ridge.

4. Someone noted here that his routings may be weak - but it doesn't matter because he rearranges the land anyway. I think that's correct.  Of his routings I am familiar with, including Stonebriar, they do feature lots of back and forth that you don't notice after he secludes each hole with ridges and near mature plantings. It seems many trees were removed for grading, and then by necessity planted back. This is one critique of his work I will agree with - more site specific design would be better.

He does seem to work on balancing hazards.  At Stonebriar, there are two ponds right, and two wetlands left off the tees. I suspect the ponds are right to reduce looking for lost balls and speed play.

5. I don't see lots of strategy (although remember, I didn't play) The prime mover seemed to be making a course that was very playable. For example, the aforementioned ponds could have been made cape holes, but were merely paralell hazards.  At Flint Hills, he did have a cape 18th, suggesting that he varies his designs for public/resort and private. Stonebriar is private, but his course emanates from the adjacent Westin Hotel, and guests have playing priviledges.

Other features suggest that he reduced difficulty as a prime design idea here.  Flint Hills and Shadow Creek have some green contours, where these are very soft. Flint Hills even has some reverse slope concepts, most notably on the long par 4 12th. Where water comes into play near greens, a wide bailout is provided.

Oddly, (or at least against convention) his fairway bunkers are deeper than greenside bunkers. With wide fairways, and placements beyond many driving areas, he may have figured these wouldn't come into play, and made greenside bunkers shallower, again to ease the difficulty.

Another anomaly was that the longest par 4 (into the wind no less) had a green across the line of play, and with one of the narrowest openings.  Couldn't tell if he wasn't thinking beyond bunker composition, or if he - like me- figures the long 4s should be really tough approaches more suitalble for a wedge to 1. give good players a really hard long iron shot, and 2. allow shorter players an "equalizer" by setting the green up for their typical wedge approach.

6. Compared to earlier courses, his cart paths, while still hidden well, are closer to the fairway than before, suggesting he may still be learing (as are we all) from actual use of his previous designs.

7. Tom puts more emphasis on his tee settings than some architects do with their green settings. Most tees are built from fill to get some elevation, and its easy to see where natural stops and the fill begins.  His are sculpted out into valleys with gentle contouring out about 100 feet each side, disguising any hint of artifical fill, although you obviously know its graded. Walking to each is an expereience.

8. His courses are well maintained, and easy to maintain, with the exception of his bunkers, which are too steep for easy maintenance - especially prone to washing sand in rain events. By going steeper with his banks, the bunkers are smaller than most (flattening the slopes to a more practical slope takes more room) but the smalll bunkers really complement the greens by making the green the visual focus.

9. He is using bigger greens, perhaps because its north Texas and bentgrass. But he also contours them more - again a great work of art, but not many more cup spaces than a smaller green.  He is not afraid to build a shelf only 20 feet wide as a pin spot.  Most pros don't aim for pins much less than 40 feet wide, but the contours are soft enough they probably would.

As for the overall evaluation - there are many theories about the design of a golf course.  Basically, you can see this archtiects theory and he has carried it out to a tee, whether you agree with it or not. He follows through with his "no excuses" architecture.

Jeff

[Paul_Daley]

The quest for attaining "Beauty" on a golf course is highly over-rated. Sure it is a handy thing to promote if present, but the feature should be a downgraded priority to laying out strategic golf holes, amid a  balanced course routing. As golfers with insight will attest to, these qualities in themselves are beautiful. We all know that  golfers return to the Old Course because of the challenge - not the surrounds. Royal Melbourne and Cypress Point golf clubs are truly fortunate  - they have both elements in abundance.

[LesClaytor]

Jeff Bruaer,
Very good post on your impessions of Mr. Fazio's work. I worked on about five Fazio projects from '97 to 2000, so it's interesting to read your impressions of the Fazio style. In general, I agree with most of your assessments.
Their office works out most, if not all details in the field, and will experiment to find a solution.
Personally, I find the Fazio bashing on this site humorous. Although I've yet to see the book, I can say that the Fazio firm can flat out build a golf course, like it or not.

[T_MacWood]

Jeff
Excellent observations.

Les
No one has said Fazio couldn't build a good golf course and most times an attractive visually striking golf course. The criticism have been over a lack of interesting strategy. With the budgets involved, don't you think if he spent 1/10th of the time he spends on creating an aesthetic vision, on presenting interesting strategies, that he might be the greatest architect of his day? My problem with Fazio is I think he is wasting his talent and all those prime opportunities, so many opportunities to create truely great all around courses, courses that are both visually and strategicly outstanding -- I don't think that is bashing, but you may have a different perspective as an insider.

[golf4les]

MacWood,
I understand the strategy vs. beauty argument, and to be honest I haven't followed the debate on Mr. Fazio's work very closely. Obviously, their organization is an easy mark because no one likes goliath.

[T_MacWood]

It's seems equally easy for you to dismiss all honest criticisms as bashing.

[TEPaul]

Interesting thread! I always enjoy Jeff Brauer's posts although sometimes I have a hard time following the details.

Tom Macwood is a straight shooter and sometimes I wonder if he isn't about to explode trying to contain his frustration.

Tom Fazio, without doubt is the most successful architect of his time for some reason. He must have talent or is the American golfer willing to be that unchallenged (and I don't mean against par)? Is that the way it is or is he just not willing to give them more than he might think they can handle and understand. I guess the almighty client has to figure into this too.

I haven't said much about Fazio before but I'm beginning to think (particularly after his book) that if you want a picture and pablum he's your man. If you are looking for a real golf course go seek out some of the others who are talked about more favorably on GCA and bring your golf clubs.

I guess you should bring your clubs to Fazio's creations too but don't forget your  camera and your spoon!

[Tags:]

Tags: