[Brian_Gracely]

[ring, ring]
Fazio: TomD, Faz here.  How'd you like to pick up some some pocket change and your pick of homes here at Fazio National Links West?

Doak:  What are you talking about?

Fazio:  I've been secretly reading that GolfClubAtlas.com site and I noticed that alot of people seem to think that Par can best be defended around the greens.  They seem to think that length and pinched bunkers just don't do it anymore.  Maybe it makes sense, I mean look at Augusta National and Pinehurst #2.

Doak:  Ok, get to the point.

Fazio:  I'd like to see if we could work out a deal.  I'll be the "signature architect", do the routing, handle all the paperwork/regulatory-issues/permitting, etc. and you'd built me some greens and green-surrounds.  Maybe it would get awarded a major someday.

Doak: Hmmm....should I do it?  Would the exposure to the masses be beneficial in the long term for golf architecture?  Could the styles be combined?

Thoughts?

[Tom_Doak]

Brian:

Sorry, no deal.  I wouldn't want to build any course where I didn't get to CHOOSE the green sites before I built them.  It's not a part of the process you can isolate from the other parts.

Besides, my work is exposed to 40,000 people a year at Pacific Dunes, and a bunch more on other public courses.  I get plenty of exposure.  Mr. Fazio's courses are generally for a more private audience.

[Brian_Gracely]

Tom,

Can you image an architectural combination (not necessarily you or Rennaisance) whereby architects that were known to be strong in certain areas came together to build a course?  Or is the whole process completely in need of a single vision?

[Tom_Doak]

Brian,

Architectural collaboration is not an easy deal by any means.  Even when you respect each other there is an awkward give-and-take that you just don't have to think about when working alone.

I don't think you can just "piece out" a golf course; if you're going to collaborate you have to get together on every facet of the design.

[blasbe1]

Besides, my work is exposed to 40,000 people a year at Pacific Dunes, and a bunch more on other public courses.  I get plenty of exposure.  Mr. Fazio's courses are generally for a more private audience.

One comment . . . TD . . . even those with "a more private audience"  part of the time, or all of the time, can still call a spade a spade . . . thus, sometimes good is just good.  

Brian, not sure what your point is but I'm happy to listen . . .

[Brian_Gracely]

Brian, not sure what your point is but I'm happy to listen . . .

My point was just to ask the question if architects that were especially known for certain skill sets, could they be paired to create a 1+1=3 situation.  Or could some architects benefit from the skill set of other architects that didn't share their same approach.

[blasbe1]

Tom,

Can you image an architectural combination (not necessarily you or Rennaisance) whereby architects that were known to be strong in certain areas came together to build a course?  Or is the whole process completely in need of a single vision?

BC, again, not sure of your pt. but see, e.g., Architect's Club, seem s that Kaye at least addressed the obvious . . .    

[blasbe1]

Brian, not sure what your point is but I'm happy to listen . . .

My point was just to ask the question if architects that were especially known for certain skill sets, could they be paired to create a 1+1=3 situation.  

BG, your pt. appears contrived, please say it ain't so . . .

[BCrosby]

I don't understand the question.

Fazio's greens (putting surfaces) are the best thing he does.

It's everything else that could use some help.

Bob

[Jim Franklin]

I agree that the defense of a golf course begins at the green and if you have played Dallas National, you will see greens that are really difficult. I think they are Fazio's best greens to date.

[Scott_Burroughs]

...and if you have played Dallas National, you will see greens that are really difficult. I think they are Fazio's best greens to date.

I agree (out of the 8 or so I've played - some are amongst his better designs)

[Brian_Gracely]

[ring, ring]
Fazio - Jeff, Faz here.  How'd you like to do some bunkering work for me?

Jeff Bradley - I don't do the symetric shapes & placements that litter your courses.

Fazio - Well, how about if you do some of those hairy-looking, craggy things on some of my courses?

[Ken Fry]

Wow, Brian.  Interesting ideas in a utopian world.  Is this to imply that Tom D.'s work beyond the greens is not a strong point?

One could read between the lines into the posts between you and Tom D., who is himslef in the middle of a little "collaboration."

I'm trying to envision Bradley bunkers at Victoria National.

[Brian_Gracely]

Ken,

Here's the origins of where I got this weird idea....and it really has nothing to do with TomD or TomF, I just used them as modern day examples that have somewhat different approaches.  I guess I could have used Ken Kavanaugh and Jack Nicklaus, or Rees Jones and Jeff Brauer.

I was watching the World Series and seeing how different people meshed to make a better or worse team, and if "functions" could be done well in parts.

I also was talking with someone recently about the greens at CPC and how the green surrounds were excellent, only #8, #9 and #13 jumped out at me as being really unusual or unique.  And after playing Pasatiempo yesterday, I was wondering what CPC would look like with those greens.  Granted this example is the same achitecture, those two unconnected thoughts got me thinking about if different architects could work together in sections.

I've only played one of TomD's course, so I wasn't trying to imply he's only good at greens...not at all.  

It was definitely a question that originated from my wandering mind, but apparently everyone took the concept too literally.

[Ken Fry]

Brian,

All I have to say is I need to find a way to get around and see courses like you do!!  I'm jealous.....

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak said ...

"Architectural collaboration is not an easy deal by any means.  Even when you respect each other there is an awkward give-and-take that you just don't have to think about when working alone."

Couple of quick questions on collaborations -- why do them if such "awkward" moments are involved?

How can the sum of two people "compromising" be better than one person opting to go it alone?

Isn't it really fair to say that in any "joint" design effort that one person is likely the "first among equals?"

[Ken Fry]

Matt,

For the reasons you stated, I'm curious if Tom is speaking from a "current perspective."

[Sean Leary]

Jim,

Ditto at Aldarra.  Best and most difficult part of the course...They actually changed one of the greens due to member complaints about it being too severe.

[Patrick_Mucci]

My point was just to ask the question if architects that were especially known for certain skill sets, could they be paired to create a 1+1=3 situation.  

What specific skill sets are Tom Fazio and Tom Doak known for ?[/color]

[Don_Mahaffey]

Brian,
Not long ago we were in a discussion about some turf management issue and I cautioned that all practices are interdependent and it was not wise to take bits and pieces of a supts program without understanding how it fits in the big picture. This idea of taking certain architects "strengths" and blending them together should be viewed in a similar way. A guy who builds great greens does so because he routes the course to take advantage of green sites and then fits the greens to those sites and each given hole. I don't think you would get the same result if he were to just show up and build greens on a designated piece of ground. Same with bunkers. A great bunker works because it fits into the landscape of a hole and the hole fits the routing...Building the bunker is the easy part.

Good architects already have a strong team to build and support their designs, adding another decision maker just doesn't make sense to me. Imagine a football team with two head coaches, its 4th and goal and one coach wants to pound it up the middle and one wants to go wide or play action, clear lines of command are what make great projects. No doubt in some cases more then one top dog could produce a great product if there was clear areas of responsibility, but this is art we're talking about and I don't know of many cases where two artists produced a great piece.

[ian]

Brian,

Doak said" "Architectural collaboration is not an easy deal by any means.  Even when you respect each other there is an awkward give-and-take that you just don't have to think about when working alone."

Sometimes it's hard to work with someone in your own office if you have completely different ideas on what should be done. A collaboration with another architect would only work if you both had full respect for each others design skills.

Pine Valley worked because Crump was the designer. He was smart enough to listen, sort through, and decide on the advice before creating his course. It's still a Crump design, not a collaboration.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()