Tom Fazio's designs are often faulted for not having classic strategy, and I'm beginning to think that's an oversimplifcation, or perhaps even a slight misunderstanding.
"No strategy" would imply that the results of every shot yield similar results. That is not true, at least in most of the Fazio courses I've seen, including a new one this past weekend.
A basic rule of classic strategy dictates that the successful riskier line for one shot leads to an advantageous position for the next. Challenging a bunker complex, or other hazard from the tee and succeeding, might provide one with a better angle, or the avoidance of having to deal with another hazard on the subsequent shot.
I also think classic strategy goes further than that based on how golf course features utilize the existing landforms. A good example might be a hole like the 6th at Huntingdon Valley (see course profile), where the right to left fall of the land dictates the creation of a diagonal green that flows from front right to back left. Flynn thoughtfully provided a carry bunker on the hill on the right, which if carried, allows the ball to funnel to the green utilizing the existing contours.
Now, back to Tom Fazio, and his differing approach. On virtually every hole, the apparently dangerous line from the tee was NOT the preferred line, even if done successfully. Most holes bent slightly one way or another, and most of the holes did feature bunkers on the inside of the dogleg. However, one found time and again that there was absolutely no reason to challenge them, short of making the hole play slightly shorter.
Instead, ironically enough, those more daring routes almost always left one with a funky angle of approach, or a tougher carry, or an awkward stance.
Time and again, the best play from the tee was AWAY from the hazards, to the outside of the doglegs.
What's more the use of landforms in directing approaches was almost exactly the opposite of what I described in the Flynn model at Huntingdon Valley. Taking that example, it's as if Fazio would have designed that greensite running diagonally from front left to back right, almost "against the grain", probably with bunkers on the left side, and necessitating a full carry. He would have also flattened the right side, perhaps creating a visually dramatic look of "benching" the right side into the steep bank on the right, with the flattening extending perhaps another 20 paces right of the green.
A good example of this is the 4th hole I played of his the other day. It is an uphill par four of 410 yards, with land sloping from left to right, and the hole turning that way. On the right inside corner of the dogleg are two nasty bunkers, and further right is death.
However, if one challenges those bunkers succesfully, they are left with an oblique angle of approach which is fully carry over a very deep bunker.
If one bails away from the trouble on their drive, they are left with an open approach, albeit slightly longer.
So it went all day. I was left wondering if this isn't perhaps a purposeful style of Fazio's, and perhaps somewhat original in concept, whether you agree with it or not.
It isn't "no strategy", it's "anti-strategy", and it's certainly counter-intuitive.