Is the Doctor always right ? Second Opinions.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Yes, my mistake.  1936, not 1934.  

Based on the photographic evidence I saw, and other discussions we had, I am certain that would be a wonderful year for GCGC to restore to.

Was I correct in identifying all of the past changes and proposed changes since that time?  

The interesting and very encouraging thing to me as well in looking at the old Garden City photos is that the bunkering looked as wild, wooly, and natural wonderful back then as it does now.  

That's what I call historical PRESERVATION!  What an avatar of elegant simplicity is Garden City, and what a treat!  

Every architect should have to see and study it before building their first course.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Fazio's work at World Woods Pine Barrens, still among his very best, should be evidence enough that he can build interesting, rough-hewn bunkers.  Heck, even his bunkers at Pine Hill have an edgier look to them that are a creative, original hybrid of the Pine Valley look.  I'd still argue, however, that even those bunkers were short of the awesome standard that Merion had evolved to over the years.  God is simply a better architect.

Patrick is right to suggest that responsibility for getting it right begins with those overseeing the project within the club or course.  It's not a one way deal, nor should it be.

However, I also have to wonder how much of the success of any bunker project rests with the contractors and shapers.  I sense that is really where the rubber meets the road, and in the case of Merion, I can't imagine any construction project redoing those 120 incredibly complex white faces taking place in less than a year and getting it even close to right, irrespective of the architect involved.    

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

"Pine Valley should be another great lesson. Here we have an architect widely criticized for altering golf courses but he duplicated Pine Valley in abbreviated form. What does that tell you?? It tells me he is capable of creating anything, based on the direction and supervision he receives."

That, I think, is a very poor attempt and a specious one at that to rationalize away much of the criticism Tom Fazio has received on here for valid reasons!

It is probably true that even Fazio's harshest critic on here might admit that he  has real talent. The enigma seems to be why he insists on using it (or not using it) the way he does. Much of the criticism you find on here concerning his work can be traced to Tom Fazio's own odd words and sentiments in his own book for the indictments of some of the things he's done.

So what if he did do the short course at Pine Valley about twelve years ago? He should have learned from that experience and kept going in that direction-that would have been nice for someone who seems as naturally prolific as he is. But he took his architecture in another direction. A less valid, a less daring and a less talent expressive direction than some of the other good ones of today and the past.

Fazio is filling the golfing world with just what he thinks today's golfers want, high end, aura ladened, photogenic playgrounds that are far removed from some of the essence of the way golf and its architecture could be, should be and hopefully will be again. Fazio isn't really out there leading in golf architecture--he is following what he thinks is the path of least resistance--the proverbial "bottom line" seeking mission, whatever that might be! He isn't that much different than the clever politician who takes an accurate poll and then takes his strong stand on what he thinks sounds principled but in reality is just seeking of the broadest common denominator even if that does happen to be depressingly uninformed and uninterested and uninteresting.

You filled the first half of your post by explaining your own experiences in just how uninformed and probably uninterested some otherwise intelligent people who happen to be running golf clubs really are. I couldn't agree more--sometimes it gets downright shocking.

So I ask you, when it comes to golf course architecture who should be giving the directions and doing the supervising? Tom Fazio or these uninterested and uninformed people? Certainly Fazio should in his own field of expertise! But that doesn't really seem to be the way it goes with him, does it?

Frankly, I really don't give a damn if Fazio does fill his inventory with expensive aura ladened CCFADs. But what drives people like Shackelford and others nuts, and I agree with, is he also insists on trying to dominate the classic course restoration scene and market that he himself professes to care little for the tradition and validity of.

Let Tom Fazio take direction and supervision from people who are in the golf business for bottom-line only--certainly if they seem little interested in valid golf architecture and only concerned with visual stimuli and aura production-what does it really matter?--nothing much at all!

But if he is going to hire on with people who are seeking his professional advice for the restorations of classic courses and such then he should be the one giving the directions to the best of his ability and supervising things--that's what they're hiring him for--aren't they?

Oh, I forgot, Tom Fazio is now doing some of these classic course restorations for free now, isn't he? What in Christ's name is that all about?

Tom Fazio is obviously a very nice man--I, for one, have never heard a word otherwise. And he did do Pine Valley's short course and some work that's OK and he probably does have talent, but that doesn't excuse some of the things he is doing in golf architecture and you should not be trying to rationalize that it does.

I believe that to date you still have not seen any of Coore and Crenshaw's work or something like Pacific Dunes. I think when you do see them you will not say things like this about Fazio again--unless he changes and really starts to give some direction and do some supervising and start really using the talent that he may have.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Dammit...if that isn't the most definitive, insightful, no-holds-barred, no-bullshit post in the history of GCA...

You make me sound politically correct...

You even make Naccarato sound like a blushing wallflower...

I won't even add the little smiley-face to this post because it's completely superfluous.    

[TEPaul]

I don't know what's happening to me MikeC--I have about my fifth case of lime-tick disease, my teeth are getting longer, my eye brows are much bushier and I'm growing long hair on top of my hands.

This may be way beyond the purview of even Katz!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Settling into a late night glass of Shiraz, I'm empathetic, and I'll wholeheartedly opine that the shaggy look becomes you.

I'll call this weekend to catch up.  Perhaps an impromptu trip to Dark Harbor would benefit my perspective, as well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Perhaps I didn't explain my point clearly enough, or perhaps you misinterpreted and misunderstood it.  Or perhaps, your angst re Fazio is so intense that you became misdirected a nano-second after reading my post.

Merion isn't about Fazio, it's about the people who give him direction, and/or discretion.  

Pine Valley proves that he can create the same look as your beloved Coore & Crenshaw.
The short course is proof positive.

Now, he may not be a fan of that look, and he may not want to create that look given the discretion to design to his tastes and preferences.

Let me ask you a question regarding Fazio and his work on a project.

Suppose I owned 400 + acres of mostly flat, moderately rolling land here in New Jersey and that the optimum conditions existed for me to build any type of course I wanted, and that permiting was no problem.  And, that I wanted to build a Garden City look alike, and that I hired Fazio at a fee of, let's say $1,500,000.

Do you think that course would look like a Fazio course, or do you think it would look just like Garden City ?  Do you think that anyone after having played or seen it, would have the slightest idea that Fazio was involved ?  If you need help with either question, Ran and Gib and some others can provide the answer.

Like most successful projects and businesses a great leader with vision, knowledge and management skills is the prime ingredient.  Every time I see a monument, it's some guy on a horse leading the charge, not some committee contemplating their lunch order.

How has the course at Notre Dame been received ?  I don't hear much about it, and as an alumni who lived next to and played the old course at Notre Dame I would hope it turned out as a fabulous golf course, but I don't know why it doesn't get much publicity, or why it isn't ranked in the top 100.  Perhaps you could explain that to me.

With regard to Pacific Dunes, I have heard wonderful things about it, and hope to get there, but that piece of property is certainly world class and an excellent site to build a golf course.  Didn't someone else build a pretty good course nearby, on the same type of property ?

At Merion, what no one seems to know, in deteail, officially, is, what was their specific goal?
What direction was Fazio given ?  
Who supervised design and construction of the project from start to finish.

Mike Cirba brings up an interesting point, and that is the time frame for the job ?
The details of that issue may create additional questions.

How did the membership feel about this project ?  How was it communicated to them, how was the progress reported to them, and how has the finished product been received by them ?

Here are the Facts.

Fazio did a GREAT job duplicating Pine Valley
Ernie Ransome co-designed the project.
Ernie Ransome supervised the project.
Employees, or hired Contractors usually do the bidding of the People who pay them.

My point was, that with the proper Leadership and supervision

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I really don't think I misunderstood or misinterpreted anything you've said on here. I don't think I even have an angst about Tom Fazio.

I don't even believe the facts and goals and mission statements or whatever you want to call them regarding Merion's project are unknown.

I realize that you know you're stuff architecturally and you're probably a great process guy too, but before you comment further on all this it would probably be best to get down here and take your first look at what you're commenting about. While you're at it take a look at some of the other product that has been mentioned many times on here and you would doubtlessly pick up immediately some real distinctions and such!

As for what I think Fazio could do with the proper direction and supervision in New Jersey in an attempt to copy GCGC; Well, I'm assuming he does have the talent to do a really good copy of GCGC--particularly based on your example of what he did at Pine Valley's Short course (with Ernie Ransome).

So I'm certainly not saying he couldn't do it with a GCGC copy. But I would certainly do some research on Tom Fazio before considering trying to hire him. What he did at the Short Course might be the first place I would look. And this is one of the things I would find:

"The idea startled me. Why, I wondered, would any golf designer want to tackle a project that involves such risk? How would it be received? No matter what was designed, it would be compared with the original course and I could only see a downside to that."      Tom Fazio.

That doesn't really sound like an architect who really has his heart in a project to duplicate in anyway a classic golf course or possibly even one that uses the same concepts and design principles.

But, who knows, maybe he could do it anyway, since he probably has the talent and of course given the proper direction and supervision.

But I know Coore and Crenshaw and Doak and Hanse etc! And I know what they can do and what THEY LIKE TO DO! I know they would very likely have their HEART and SOUL in it--or at the very least they would tell me they didn't, up front. If they're as worried as  Tom Fazio was about the risk of it all, I can promise you I haven't seen it from any of them to date!

So, I ask you, why then would I be inclined to hire Tom Fazio instead of them, particularly when he just might cost twice as much?

You or someone might say to me because he is Tom Fazio--the world famous golf architect--and he would attract members or investors more easily! That might be so, but that's not an architectural question--it's a business question and that's not what you asked me at all.

[RJ_Daley]

Well, I just for the first time read this thread.  I have a 1:45 tee time and since the thread has grown to a legendary length, I thought is is time I looked at it to see what the heck everyone is clamoring about.  

Wow, it is a complete advanced course on golf course design, restoration, art-history and psychology.  Rich, it is dynamic like the golf course designs of great and unquestioned historical and design-artixtic significance.  Assuming that this thread might end someday, where would one find the point to printi it out to...right after Tom MacWoods first comment, after Geoff's third, or after my bollixed attempt to comment here?

The themes that are with me upon this one-time reading of the thread are, the human nature and hubris of decisions to restore-remodel in the first place.  There seems to be ego involved in everyone who has had responsibility in the decision.  Perhaps like Patrick mentions, a tendency of a membership that is under 10 years membership history with the club wanting to put their own generations stamp on it; the need for these people to associate with a "name architect";  the need for a name architect to associate with an unquestioned "name course", etc.

I have never seen Merion.  All I can do is imagine through the eyes of those who have and care deeply.  It comes down to, "who do you trust".  I tend to fall into the camp of wanting to fallow the ones with the least ego involved, but the most practical knowlege and time and sweat labor taking care of the old girl.  Kittleman reportedly said something to the effect:  'Just go out there and spend time with her and she'll tell you what she needs'.  Crenshaw reportedly advised not to do anything substantive to her but tinker with how she may drain in the bunkers and more maintenance that construction issues.  I haven't met Crenshaw either, but those whom I respect that know him quite well also advise that Ben is without hardly any ego, and his reverance for what is great in golf course design and the lore of the game is legendary.  

So, I think that the whole thing about what has happened to Merion is the failure of the culture and workings of ego.  After the same forces of ego entered at ANGC when RTJ was brought in to remodel and restore, the course really embarked on the path to endless facelifts and has become the Micheal Jackson nose job turned grotesque annual tune-up that is a conglomeration of what is beauty.  Merion has now rung the bell, and it can't be unrung.  I once thought that such projects could be returned to original pre-screw-up conditions.  But, this thread made me realise that they can't.  This discussion can only have value for te future green committees and decision makers to heed the forces of ego or hubris.  Listen to the people that invest time and careers to take care of these old gals and have demonstated over long time that they love her.  If it wasn't broke, don't fix it.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dick, You have it!

What was so special about Merion was that it was like walking into a time warp. Very few courses were capale of doing this, especially less then a half hour from thriving metropolis.

It sickens me to think that the membership behind all of htis actually think s that thay have done the course well to add to it's history. While history will show that they were severely wrong, the ultimate failure is that it is now all gone. Nobody wins, more specifically the history that Merion memebership supposedly so protectively convented.

They have failed and golf has lost another classic, and like you point out, all in the name of ego.

While the routing and palying charateristics may not have changed substanially, certainly the heart and soul has. I'm thankful I got to see it before it was so ruthlessly "hacked-up." There is a better word, but decency prevents me from using it, but to let you know it is just like the majority of the membership/owners as we have so unfortunately, learned.

Pat Mucci,
Tom Fazio is the best and Robert Von Hagge and Rees Jones are right behind him. It's all about these men who have given so many great modern courses to the game to make up for all of those horrible old ones.

If Mackenzie, Tillinghast, Ross, MacDonald, Raynor, Banks, Thomas, Colt, Flynn, Wilson, Crump, Travis, Emmet, Etc. were so great, how come they are dead?

Long live framing.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Patrick:

I'll assume you're dead on regarding the "quality" (sorry, Geoff) of Pine Valley's short course, but I will likewise assume that given Tom Fazio's closeness with the club, he actually was involved with its design and construction.  And therein may lie a very important difference.

Just my opinion but were I the biggest name architect on earth, trying to gain some additional credibility by attaching my name to classic old sites, I cannot remotely imagine that I'd be sitting home in Hendersonville, allowing my name to go on these works sight-unseen.

Unless, perhaps, I was building my defense to criticism in advance.

[William Shakespeare]

Tom Paul,

You may be missing Patrick's point again.

If I understand him correctly, he is saying that, Fazio, with a clear set of marching orders and proper supervision can construct the look you like,  and that is clearly evidenced by his work at Pine Valley.

You also didn't answer Patrick's question regarding the quality and ranking of the golf course at Notre Dame, a Coore & Crenshaw
project.

Tommy Nacarrato,

You too miss his point.  I believe he is saying that any of these architects can produce the desired result he seeks.  

If he  hires Fazio or anyone else, they're going to produce what Patrick wants, period.

His example of duplicating Garden City in New Jersey reflects the hired architect following the mandate of the owner who knows what product he wants to produce or re-produce.

If Fazio didn't get it right at Merion, perhaps he was given the incorrect marching orders, and he  produced what the committee wanted.  Blame the committee not Fazio.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

William,
Great to see you posting. You had a nice line in Hamlet, went something like "List, o list, o list" or some such thing. I bring it because I think you and Pat are really onto something here with this Notre Dame course. I think you have found the weak spot in the Coore and Crenshaw armor. It's unranked! There must be flaws!! It must not live up to Tom Fazio's "quality" golf. Oh no!

In the end, if this is all people can come up with to defend Tom Fazio's actions as a golf architect, you haven't helped his cause. If the glory of replication found in the Short Course at Pine Valley and a confused committee at Merion and the bumbling management at Riviera are all we can use to justify this firm's actions, the case is not being made. Fazio Golf Course Designers has set out to work free of charge in order to associate themselves with classic designs. They will do whatever the client wants, which is dangerous in restoration. Great in new design and why they are tremendously successful and I applaud them for doing what the client wants. But when the architect openly puts down the old architects in print, and yet wants to earn acclaim as a master architect while he sends out associates to put his stamp on the classics, he's going to take the blame no matter how misguided the clients may be. They think they are getting the best, and to boot, free of charge. They are getting what they pay for.
Geoff

[Kenny Takiwana]

Patrick,
You certainly a have lot of fight still left in you after all of these years.

Blame both Fazio and Merion, just as I blame both Fazio and Bel Air for what they have done to it.

[Mike_Cirba]

You know, it occurs to me after several hundred posts on the topic, that no one has yet to come on here with their real name and say positive things about what's most important here...the ACTUAL BUNKERING WORK DONE AT MERION!

Is the Greens Committee at fault?  Tom Fazio?  His associates?  MacDonald & Sons, the Contractor?  The guys they hire to run the backhoes?  The membership?

Does it matter?  This finger-pointing is silly.  

Should any architect do a job that they do not want professional responsibility and accountability for the final results?  Is Mr. Fazio well enough off that he should decline work that is not in keeping with his architectural philosophy and approach?  Should his vast years in the field be set aside to do the bidding of whatever the membership wants?  

Who's responsible?  Does it even matter at this point?

Surely, someone, somewhere has seen the work and thinks it is a positive change.  Let's hear from them.  Let them tell us why the course is not better and lend them a listening ear.  Let them tell us why this is a good thing for both Merion, as well as course architecture and the game.  

Anyone?  

[Mike_Cirba]

oops..that should have said, "Let them tell us why the course is "now" better" and lend them a listening ear".

[George Pazin]

I wish I was a fly on the wall at the meeting of Mr. Fazio & the project leaders at Merion and/or Riviera.

Does anyone think he made any attempt to explain why they already had treasures? Unlikely, given his views of the old classics. RJ explained things very well vis-a-vis the importance if communication between architect & client. I don't think anyone on this site thinks that anyone else, architect or layperson, knows everything & has nothing new left to learn. It seems to me that the project leaders at these various clubs simply seek out someone who will agree with their opinions, right or wrong. I think Mr. Fazio does indeed bear some responsibliity if he made no attempt to explain to the various committee members what makes their courses great & special.

You said long ago, Patrick, that many of these unwise decision are made based on ego. You were right then, & it certainly seems to apply now.

[George Pazin]

I forgot to mention the only 100% certainty with regard to Merion.

Regardless of the outcome of the restoration, you can be damn sure everyone involved with the 2005 Amateur will tow the party line & exclaim, "Look how much better this course is after the wonderful restoration work by Tom Fazio!"

Thus leading to more bad decisions...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

I can't disagree with your point relative to Fazio's printed words, and I'm not defending those statements, or his style.

What I was trying to get across is that if Fazio worked for you, Ken Bakst, or Myself, and we wanted a certain product, he would produce that product, just like he did under Ernie Ransome at Pine Valley.

Therefore, I feel, if Merion had wanted a certain look or result they would have gotten it, but, it appears they got the look they wanted, and that's not Fazio's fault.

Geoff, it's not that the Notre Dame course is unranked, it's unheralded.  No one says, if you want to see a great golf course, go see the one at Notre Dame, and as an alumni, nothing would please me more.  

Not every golf course an architect designs turns out to be a spectacular track, and I was growing a little weary of the unabated praise heaped upon two very capable architects, as if they were deities.

I do feel their natural style and philosophy is extremely different from Fazio's, and I'm sure that if each were given license to do their own thing, I would rather align myself with Coore & Crenshaw.

But, we're not talking about giving them license, we're talking about giving them specific marching orders to produce a specific product.  At Pine Valley Fazio succeeded, at Merion we don't know the answer yet.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Although "we don't know the answer yet", the work is largely completed.  

And, that's what I was asking.  I've seen the work and offered my honest opinion.  I'm certain that others who frequent this discussion group have seen it as well, even if they only take the time to read what's written periodically.

So what I'm asking those people is simple.  I know that many of us in here are viewed as zealots and purists, and perhaps there is some real truth to that.  It's easy for us to criticize, but I wonder how well we can take our lumps with a clearly spoken, dissenting view.

That's why I asked for anyone who has seen the work, or played the course since the bunkering changes to step forward and tell us all what we're missing or not understanding.  Surely someone out there is sitting and reading this and feeling that the changes benefitted the Merion East golf course.  

We may disagree and debate with that opinion, but wouldn't we all be better off with a thorough discussion instead of this one-side barrage of criticism?  

Those of us who have criticised the changes have done so out of a professed love and admiration for the course.  I would think that those who feel that the changes are appropriate and positive would be working from the same set of motivations.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

My issue isn't with the finished product,
it's with the process that produced it !

I would like to know the facts from an internal point of view.

Once all the facts are at my disposal, I'm better positioned to make an intelligent decision or judgement.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Those are important questions to understand, no doubt.

But, I'd suggest that two things are just as important in forming an opinion.

1) How true to the club's vision is the work produced by Tom Fazio and the contractor's who report to him?

2) As Tom Paul suggests, it would be worthwhile for you to come by at your convenience to see the finished product and form you own impressions based on the golf course and bunkering as it now exists.  

I know you are a results-oriented, bottom-line guy, and also someone who knows that the best intentions are sometimes the road to Hades.

[TEPaul]

William Shakespeare:

Well, I'm sorry about that then--I guess I'm just missing Patrick's point again!

Am I though? His point is that given the same direction, supervision and marching orders that Fazio (or presumably any other architect) can do the job a committee (or whomever) wants. Maybe he even thinks they can do the job exactly the same way and deliver the same product and all that good stuff. I think I just might have to disagree with that presumption--and despite his example of the Short Course at Pine Valley.

Do either of you know who did the bunker work on the Short Course at Pine Valley? Do you think Tom Fazio, Tom Marzholf and some of the other Fazio "designers" got in there with a shovel? Or maybe you think MacDonald & Co. might have slipped in there and wiped them out. By Tom Fazio's own admission the bunkering on the Short Course was done "in-house". Does that tell you anything?

I really do understand what Pat is saying and I really don't think I'm missing something--I'm just answering him that I think what he's saying could be a bit of a stretch.

I'll put my feeling and belief another way that might show you that I may not be missing the point. I do not believe that all architects will produce the same product even if they are given the same direction, marching orders, whatever. I know you do because you just said so and Pat may believe that too (actually he said so too). I'm afraid it just ain't that simple though.

Or put even another way. I believe that if Merion gave the exact same directions and marching orders (used the exact same words) to Coore & Crenshaw that they gave to Fazio that the bunkers at Merion would have turned out quite differently.

I'll even go farther than that. If they  hired Fazio as the architect and somehow were able to use C&C's "Boys" (instead of MacDonald & Co) to do the bunker work they would have turned out quite differently!

I'm definitely not saying to Pat or you that "process" (direction, supervision, marching orders, whatever) isn't important. It is important but unless you and Pat know as much about building bunkers as Jeff Bradley does then I think you really aren't looking far enough into this in your arguments or your points.

I'll admit that 90% of the members of Merion might not even notice the difference--but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference. I've talked about this subject for almost  two years and it wasn't until about a month ago that Kye Goalby showed me in minute detail what the difference really is. It really boils down to three dimensions vs two dimesions and ends up looking like nature itself made it!

Put in another even more specific way. Restoring bunkering like Merion's evolutionary bunkering can only be done with machinery to a certain point, if at all. The rest takes some really good handwork and some very good and creative people to do it. You may not think so but some of us do.

So please, before you discuss this anymore do all of us a favor and take a look at the various bunker work we're talking about.

As for your question about Notre Dame G.C., others since have answered your question as well as I could.

[Kenny Takiwana]

Patrick,
You certainly a have lot of fight still left in you after all of these years.

Blame both Fazio and Merion, just as I blame both Fazio and Bel Air for what they have done to it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kenny,

How many times must I tell you, your last name is TANIKAWA.

Tom Paul,

We disagree on direction, management and supervision leading to producing the product THE CLUB WANTED.  No one on here has stated or quoted exactly what THE CLUB WANTED, so you can't evaluate the finished product until you find that out !

And...... no one answered my question on Notre Dame.