[Tommy_Naccarato]

It is a pretty well known fact that I am one of the Fazio critics that is extra hard on him.

Why?

Simply because he is at the top of his field and yet produces some of the most strategically-challenged golf courses ever. He also builds these courses at a price that is not only staggering, but in an effect that could ruin the game simply by the precidence that it sets.

Then to make matters worse, he has decided to leave his mark on classic courses. Tim, if this fact is ego driven, well then, I'm doubting Thomas. If indeed he didn't want to leave his mark, then how come I'm staring at a picture of a crowned green on Riviera's 8th hole? (Something that never existed.) How come the King wanted to add about twenty more bunkers and even completely reroute Riviera's 2nd hole by eliminating the driving range? If this isn't enough proof for you to understand that the motive is something similar to RTJ's Snake Oil Salesman routine of years past, I don't know what is.

Ask Aronomink.

In about 6-8 years time, we can start asking Riviera if it as worth it all. Especially when the holes he worked on don't fit the rest of the course. I only have Inverness, Oak Hill and Merion to provide as proof.

[Edwin Rognvaldsson]

On the subject of routing again.

I think that in many cases the developer demands a "high quality, par 72 championship course". Many modern architects, in my view, focus too much on balance (having two loops of nine of equal length, four par threes and four par fives), with length also being a top priority.

This takes away the method of simply finding the best green sites and incorporating as many of them as you can into the final layout.

Many potentially good holes are lost in discarded layout plans, just because they produced two loops of nine of unequal length or par.

[TEPaul]

Good point Edwin and now I have a question for you.

You've just sighted the typical modern par 72 course with four par 3 and four par 5s (probably all set in just the right formulaic spot in the routing and being of just the correct formulaic length too).

This does, as you say, in a routing sense likely get into something less than the search and development of what might be better holes on a particular site.

The first question is; "Wouldn't you agree that the modern par 72 type course you just sighted is quite one dimensional and inelastic?

The second question is; "How would you feel about a course like NGLA that's a par 73, considered too short and undemanding for very good players with its very reachable par 5s and odd balance routing, if the club just produced a second card (changing absolutely nothing about the course, even the tee markers) and called the course a par 70? That would seem to indicate instant and simple elasticity that the more modern par 72 course is not capable of, wouldn't you think?

A Tour pro would likely still shoot under par (70) but might be almost as likely to drop shots at #5, #7! and #18!! that would then be par 4s!! as he would be likely to pick up birdies on the extremely short and quirky #1 and #2.

It's interesting how such an unformulaic course as this might have so much more elasticity (and actually might then be perceived a very worthy test of a very good golfer and very simple so--simple shift of the pars!) than the modern, completely formulaic par 72 course you sighted. Would you agree?

The same might even be said about Maidstone going from a par 72 to a par 70 by simply producing a second card with #15 and #16 as par 4s!! Again, very quirky but good routing=ELASTICITY!

[Tom_Doak]

Excellent point by Edwin.

My approach to routing is basically this:  I explore different combinations of holes which might work.  Because I know that clients are preoccupied with the scorecard, generally I look to keep each nine holes a par 35 or 36, but am willing to consider options with one nine at par 34 or 37.

How many more combinations does this allow than only the par 36 alternatives?  If I didn't care at all about 34-37, then the random odds of coming up with a par 36-36 would be one in sixteen.

Maybe that's why I've done fourteen courses to date, and not one of them is a par 36-36.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy N:

Good to hear from you.

This stuff is old ground, but I'll add my two cents anyway.

I share your opposition to making significant changes to classic courses.  Good old Prestwick is fine the way it is.  Ditto Riviera and the other venues you mention.

But here we go again with the question - often debated - about motives and responsibility.  Tom Fazio doesn't force these changes on clients like Riviera, Merion, Oak hill, Oakmont, etc.  Does he?

What about the client?  What about the desire to hold major events?  What about technology?

Raising the issue of cost seems entirely fair to me even if it is the client making the financial decisions/commitments.  But, I don't know how to stop the unfortunate trend toward ever higher project costs.  Maybe more developers will look at what Mike Keiser did and get a clue.  Besides that, other than a long recession - which I'm not hoping for -what chance do we have?

Strategically challenged courses?  All that talk is fine by me.  My only point is that the more specific examples are given, the more likely people will listen.  Anything preceived as simple "bashing" just gets dismissed very quickly and serves no purpose.

[TEPaul]

Well, then, Tom Doak, the random odds say you better do a modern totally formulaic standard par 72, 36-36 nines with four par 3s, four par 5s, all in the right formulaic place and all of standard formulaic length and perfect returning nines, standard modern balance and variety etc. etc. and you better do it next!

We all know you can do it, and make it interesting somehow, but it will be a real challenge to you, no doubt, and might test the Doak genius to the hilt. But you better pull it off Pal, or we'll be on you like a million ticks!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

If Tom Doak wants to do a "totally formulaic standard par 72, 36-36 nines with four par 3s, four par 5s, all in the right formulaic place and all of standard formulaic length and perfect returning nines, standard modern balance and variety etc. etc." to quote TEPaul, he should do it on that site in Lubbock, because there are no, I repeat no, natural features to work with in Lubbock, Texas. No reason not to go for his ideas of "perfect balance". So, great timing, Tom!

Jeff

[Russell]

Getting back to routing, I had the pleasure of playing Bel-Air and Shadow Creek. Probably the most dissimilar routings you can find. While Thomas was forced to route Bel-Air from the topography, Fazio had a free rein, and yet there are interesting similarities and distinct differences.

I can remember every hole at Bel-Air, yet ask myself if that was 7 or 16 at Shadow Creek. Even with all of the changes, Bel-Air is a blast to play with all of the eleveation changes and canyons that the course winds around in.

Both courses have a certain rhythm which I think is the most important thing about routing. At Bulle Rock, every hole was a bear without letup, yet it retained that rhythm, although very difficult to maintain. Bel-Air and Shadow Creek allow breathers, particularly Shadow Creek which challenges you, but allows you to really enjoy, the golf, the scenery, the camraderie.

Bel-Air's breathers are much more subtle, for instance the 12th (the former Mae West hole) allows you a straightforward par four breather to be followed by a long Redan par 3 and a loooong par 5, followed by a looong par 4.

Shadow Creek starts with a bunch of easy par 4s then slowly builds to more difficult par 4s and 5s. Although I'm a long hitter, the par 5s gave me the most trouble, probably by not knowing the right line to take off the tee. The 16th is a bear of a par 5, but the 17th-a short par 3 into a waterfall and the par 5 18th past Steve Wynn's obscenely huge palace are both holes to make birdies on.

Is routing simply using the land, wind, sun, topography and elevation you're dealt with, or is it all of the above with an added sprinkle of rhythm?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff,

You're right, there was nothing to work with in Lubbock.

Somehow, though, we wound up with a par-71 design; I thought the golf team would be better off with a downwind 490-yard par 4 for the second hole, then with a very easily reachable par five.

Somehow, too, after the last routing change, we wound up with back-to-back par fives to finish.  Is that ideal?  Beats me ... but it might be interesting for tournament play.

[Chris_Hervochon]

Is ideal having a par 36-36(72) with no back-to-back par 5's or 3's, or is ideal having a golf course that absolutely maximizes the site's potential no matter what the sequence of holes is?

[TEPaul]

On a completely featureless site, blank canvas, totally clear clay property you designed two back to back par 5s??? What's going on with you man? You had you're prefect formulaic opportunity and you let it slip from your grasp?! I'm telling you, your routing sounds UNAMERICAN to me!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Tillinghast thought back to back finishing par 5"s were fine, as evidenced at Baltusrol.

[TEPaul]

Two more back to back finishing par 5s, huh?

Ok, Ok, Tillinghast, Schmillinghast! We all know about his flask, and even without it he sounds UNAMERICAN too! So forget about Baltusrol, it's meaningless, and repeat after me; "fun is formula, formulaics is fun, fun, fun!

[Edwin Rognvaldsson]

TEPaul,

After giving your comments some thought, I'm afraid I cannot agree with you 100%, although I see where you are coming from.

I think this is quite true in some cases, but find it hard to imagine that this could apply to all examples. It sure is an interesting point you make.

[Edwin Rognvaldsson]

By the way, I was talking about the comments you posted before this last one. I will not comment on the liquid lunch.

[TEPaul]

Edwin:

I don't know which of my "comments" you've given thought to. If you mean the comments about the "elasticity" of an NGLA, I wish you would remark more about what you feel about that. If you mean any of the other comments I made on some of my other posts on this thread you shouldn't take them seriously, matter of fact I shouldn't have made them and they should be deleted anyway.

[kilfara]

Before Ballybunion was tweaked, it used to end with back-to-back par 5s, did it not? (Not the best ending to the course in that form, I seem to remember reading.)

Cheers,
Darren

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()