Where have you gone, Tom Fazio?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark;

I'm going to have to start listening to your recommendations every once in a while!  

Thankfully, the day we played was on the cool, overcast side, with nary a pesky "greenhead" fly in sight.  Still, I'd imagine even swarms of locusts would somehow be indigenous to the testing adventure of the course, and I'm still somewhat exhilerated two days later!  It's the type of course that excites the senses and the brain...truly a very, very pleasant shock to find out for myself exactly how good it is.  

If anything, I'm going to be even tougher on the "Tom Fazio pro forma course", as Matt Ward terms the ones he designs without soul or character, because I've now seen absolute evidence (beyond World Woods Pine Barrens) of exactly how talented of an architect he really is.

Brian;

The sites of Galloway and Pine Valley bear some distinct similarities, which Fazio certainly took advantage of.  The course is built on sand, has some decent natural elevation changes (although not in the league of PV), has a good variety of naturally mature trees and open stretches, and even adds holes along the bay (with views of the Atlantic City skyline) which are well utilized.

There are any number of Pine Valley like looks, with rugged, expansive bunkering, and the greens certainly are WAY beyond anything I've seen from Fazio in terms of variety, severity, and interest.  Beyond that, visual intimidation (that actually plays as tough as it looks) is extensively used to get in the golfer's head, but I think it remains playable for higher handicaps, albeit with a few forced carries.

Adam;

I'm not sure if one gets the same "feeling" at Galloway that they do at some of the classic courses (with historical ambiance), and the routing in stretches can detract from the overall "walk in the park" enjoyment.  However, I've played many, many courses that are "collections of holes", where continuity is missing, and where walking is impossible.  Galloway is not one of them.  Instead, it has a very special feeling of its own, and one finds their excitement level elevated right from the first hole, and it doesn't dissipate thoughout.  

Archie;

Isn't the 18th green accessible to the weaker player through a run up on the left side?  It seems to me that the whole left side falls to the right, and was left open for that purpose.

I liked the 16th green, but can understand how some pin positions might be problematic.  What do you think is wrong with it and how would you like to see it changed?

[GeoffreyC]

I think that I commented to Mike on leaving the 18th green that it slopes down and is accessable to the ground game.  You just need to avoid the large waste bunker short and to the right that extends well into the fairway.  There is an evil mound on the left of the green that hosted the pin when we were there.  It seems most every green has at least one really tough pin location.

Archie- The 16th green is really large but quite severe and undulating with a nice false front on the right half.  It seems to me that the 16th is perhaps the most bland hole on the course.  Its a par 5 of 532 yards.  There is actually a large lake on the left of the driving area that I believe is blind from the tee! Otherwise its a straightforward drive and a generous 2nd shot with plent of room to the right. The green presents the problem of the hole.  Placing a wedge on the correct section of the green is critical or 3 putts are going to be common.  For the big basher, birdie is no simple matter if your long second shot finds a bad angle to the hole location.

[archie]

Mike,

Love talking about one of my favorite places to play, a serious test of golf and a roller coaster ride when set up tough! Galloway National, in my humble opinion. would be top fifty material if the greens weren't over the top. I reiterate that I just don't think it is ever fun for the less than expert player. Just too much unrelenting pressure, which I am quite sure was intentional. I watched Blake and the Fazio guys build it, and they did some awesome stuff here! Great bunkers are the norm at Vernons' place.

Being an armchair architect is one of the reasons we all love golf, and this site. I got into some hot water when I didn't get the short par four at Hidden Creek, and what Crenshaw, Coore & James Duncan were thinking.This happened after a few cold beers and right next to Roger Hansen, who knows I think they did a great job on the project. Oh well!

#16 at Galloway is a fun, reachable par five that has a severe ridge running east/west on the green. This ridge makes putting and even going for the green border on the semi- ridiculous for many of the pin placements. You can't skip it in, and the green just misses the mark for me. Its really qite big, and should be small. My thinking is similar on #18, just reversed. This would be the perfect spot for a large, rambling green, with lots of pin placements. The tee shot is tough for anone who isn't really quite long, and a short hitter is at a tremendous disadvantage. I've had the same argument presented to me about 18 at Twisted, but I think that they are uniquely different in this regard. At Galloway, the only really effective shot is a high & soft. I like the option of bouncing it in. I do belive the fairway is canted so as to repel not receive anything coming in hard & fast, but I will examine this further and report back. Remember, as an examination of golf , I feel Galloway takes a back seat to very few venues.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Archie;

I'll be interested to hear what you think about the left side of 18 after another look.  Geoffrey and I spent a bit of time examining this question, and it appeared to us that the left side was almost perfectly shaped to accommodate that long, running approach.  

As far as the severity of the course overall, do you think that the owner's intentions might have been similar to Crump's at PV?  That is, to build a championship course to test the best players?

I ask that because the course features only two sets of tees; the back or "yellow" tees at 6901, par 71, and the forward or "blue" tees at 6374.  Hardly overwhelming at first glance until one realizes the course plays with capricious coastal winds and is at "sea level".  

Still, I can't think of a hole where a higher-handicapper couldn't negotiate around someway, and it's only once one gets to the greensites that things become pretty severe.

Interesting that you think it plays several shots tougher than PV...having quite a bit of experience at both, I'm sure you have a better sense than I do, but that's still fairly surprising, given that it's sloped at 142 from the back.  I have a hunch that it might play tougher for the better player, but I think Pine Valley does a more thorough job of burying the hack under a barrage of triples and quads.

[archie]

Vernon Hill, the big mahaf(sp?) at Galloway, wanted to make a statement with this golf course and he did that. It was  built with the mission statement of being a must see for golf afficionados, hence the National tag. I would suggest that he succeeded!

This doesn't keep me from questioning why Fazio didn't take just a little more time and really build better, or fix , some crazy/questionable green complexes. How about #14 also, how or who can hold this one if it is quick and even a little downwind.

Notwithstanding the unreachable par fives at the Valley, I believe it is harder to shoot a really low score at Galloway.
Pine Valleys' greens are far superior, yet not necessarily harder
IMO.

Difficulty at the Valley is more the cumulative effect of shot making, management, putting and  most importantly concentration. It is not the difficulty of any one single shot that gets you, with the tee shot on #5, or the second shot on #1, being possible exceptions to the rule.

I can think of multiple shots at Galloway that are just very severe, particularly when the wind is blowing, and the greens can be impossible to two putt in certain spots, skill notwithstanding.

As to the carom of a low runner on #18, I think it would end up in the right rough or over the green with even slightly firm and fast conditions. I'll check it, maybe tomorrow!!

Hope to see you and geoffrey again soon!    

[Mike_Cirba]

Archie;

Perhaps Geoffrey and I played Galloway as a slightly tamer beast after a couple inches of rain a day or so before.  What you're describing sounds brutal, and I'd imagine that it's possible through firm and fast conditions to take the design over the top in terms of playability, given the demands of the architecture.  

We ended up with very few three putts, not that we made a lot either.  Also, the greens tended to be receptive...for example, I hit a good drive on 18, and then a five iron right onto the left side knob where the hole was located, and the ball stayed "up".  Unfortunately, I left the birdie attempt just short.  

To further play devil's advocate, isn't there a little "upslope" ramp just short of 14, where it would be possible to "kill" a running shot onto that green?  Even with a tucked back pin behind the bunker on the right, it would seem that a left to right curving shot coming in low and running on that 219 yard par three could find it's way back there.

I think Vernon Hill succeeded in his mission, in spades.  I think many here would enjoy the course a great deal, even with the stringent demands!    

I say that because along with the strategic challenges that the course presents, it is also a VERY natural course that is unforced, with minimal earthmoving, great tie-ins to natural features, rugged look and integration, and subtleties that I'm sure would evidence themselves with repeated playings.

Also, got your note....let's plan on it!

[archie s]

Mike cirba...I meant left rough on eighteen, not right!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike, Archie, Mark, et.al.,

Don't you feel that PV's fairwalys are far more generous than Galloway's ?

[Sandy Barrens Jr.]

Mr. Cirba,
It all sounds to me like you need to pick-up and throughly study a copy of "The Architectural Side of Golf" as soon as possible.

[Sandy Barrens Jr.]

[TEPaul]

Nope, I think that "kicker" short and left of #18 is really well conceived architecturally! The interesting part of that "kicker" area is from the approach shot area it isn't easy to see if at all. Visually from the approach it does look like you have to hit the approach right at the dimensions (side to side) of the greenspace--but you don't--you can use that short left "kicker". But like anything else you sort of have to play it correctly too--just like anything else in golf!

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

No, clearly the fairways at Galloway are not of the width scale that one sees at PV, although very few courses are.  Geoffrey and I did have good driving days playing from the tips, but we spent very little time in the rough and trees.  I certainly don't classify the course as overly tight from the tee, although a few trees here and there could be lost without complaint.

Sandy;

The pic I posted of the 3rd is misleading, as it was obviously taken from the far left hand side of the fairway.  The strategy of the hole is depicted below (hope this works).



But, looking at the pic again, it's clear that there is a generous bailout area short right of the green for the weaker player who finds himself on the right side and not wishing or able to make the approach carry to the green.

The green slopes generally from left to right, and the preferred side of the fairway is clearly from the right.  However, the landing area sort of conspires against this, as it slopes to the left side and the hole plays uphill from an elevated tee.  Only the most solid and accurate of drives finds the right side, which gives a preferential angle for the approach..  

I'm not sure from your second pic if you mean that Fazio copied this hole at or from another of his courses, because I don't recognize it.  

Overall, the 3rd at Galloway is not one of the standouts.  It is a seemingly straightforward hole, although very solidly conceived, that is made complex because of the angle and orientation (as well as severity) of the green complex.

It's sort of ironic...your name DID come up as Geoffrey and I were playing Galloway, and we came to the conclusion that you'd find a LOT to like there.  

Personally, I certainly haven't been shy about offering criticisms of Fazio courses in the past...even the VERY recent past, but after seeing Galloway and what he is capable of, it's both time to give credit due, as well as lament how few of his recent designs match this lofty status.

[Sandy Barrens Jr.]

Mr. Cirba,
The image is from one of Dr. Fazio's great works in Irvine, California called Oak Creek Golf Club, which if you might remember from my description, put me into a catatonic state from the lack of strategy and even worse, all of the repetition.

While the Galloway hole is less of a dog leg, and the waste bunker not nearly as long--lets face it, in Faz-Speak terms, we are talking about what the hole resembles and what it looks like with all of the framing and containment, correct?

Also, please refrain from playing anymore Fizzio courses for the remainder of the year. My mind can't take another description of another GREAT site, ruined by containment and good looking bunkers that don't come into play, that is still a "8" on the Mark Fine scale of taste and substance.

[Mike_Cirba]

Sandy;

Just as a reality check on the 3 Fazio courses I've played in recent weeks, I'll provide my "Doak Scale" score below;

Ridge at Back Brook - 4
Emerald Dunes - 5.5
Galloway National - 8

Now, back to the discussion at hand as well as the reality of Galloway.

There is NO containment at Galloway.  It is a CONVEX course, not a CONCAVE one.  From the naturally elevated first green that sits high above the bay, falling into perdition on all sides, one is reminded of holes like #1 at PV, where a misplayed approach can lead to quick disaster.

I don't think there is a mound out there, as a matter of fact.  I think the pictures clearly indicate that the "high points" are in fact the "target areas", and not some earth-moved areas designed to contain errant shots.  Please point out anything I may have missed, as well as any "out of play" hazards, because there was very little that fell into the range of out of play, eye-candy.  

The bunkers are HAZARDS....unruly, unkempt, deep, shaggy, interestingly placed, and brutal pits of punishment.  Geoffrey and I pointed out a few that we thought you'd actually have a good time rolling around in if you saw them...they are truly THAT good, and yes, we were VERY pleasantly surprised!

The greens were consistently interesting, and when you have good players like Tom Paul and Archie Struthers talking about their severity, I'm sure you realize that they aren't your typical, flattish, dull, pro-forma Fazio "playable" greens.

Geoffrey and I (and I hope I'm not speaking for him too much here) found ourselves in a state of "pleasurable excitement" hole after hole, and if that isn't an indication of how good the course actually is, then I have to say that you don't have the faith in my judgement that I deep down know you do.  

When you come east again, I'm sure there are other courses that you'd be more eager to play, but I'd love to have you visit Galloway because it's an eye-opener that spells out the sometimes wide gap between what Tom Fazio is capable of and what many of his recent designs sadly are missing.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike,
Please, if you get the chance, go to the Oak Creek website @ http://oakcreekgolfclub.com and go to hole #7 of the Course Tour section. You will see that regardless of this being there or that being here, the purpose of the sand hazards and the green complex are almost identical, albeit the Oak Creek version dogging much more left.

[brad_miller]

Geoff Childs, sounds like GN is in your opinion one of the better modern courses you have played, maybe the best TF course for you, is this true? How does it compare to a few of the other (new) modern courses you have played this year. RC, WH, VN, Atlantic... others can be done in code

[brad_miller]

Mark Fine, knowing that you have played almost everywhere, what are your other fav TF courses? Which ones might contend that you haven't played? TY

[Mark_Fine]

Brad,
I've played I about 30 Fazio designs around the country.  My favorites in addition to Galloway are Shadow Creek a 9, Victorial National an 8, Wade Hampton a boarderline 8, Black Diamond Quarry a 7, World Woods Pine Barrens a 7, and Estancia a boarderline 7.  Everything else is 6 or lower.    
Mark

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mark, what about the "8" you gave The Quarry At La Quinta? (Or did it in typical Golf Digest fashion, fall off the face of the planet.)

Don't make me dig up the old email to prove it. I save them all!

[archie s]

Pat Mucci

I don't think the tee shots at Galloway are overly severe, and in general are pretty interesting. Perhaps on # 13 it gets a little tough, because you have to fit it and hit it long at the same time. I like that driver isn't required all over, yet if you can stripe it it gives you an advantage. The par fives are a little soft, and the good young players would make some easy birdies with their length. if the defense against length was the crazy greens on #9 & 16, I don't particularly like it. Remember, the shorter hitter has to hit a longer shot into the wicked undulations, not just putt them.

Mike Cirba & Tom Paul. I'll bet a large serving of extra spicy chicken wings at Charlies' in Somers Point, after we quaff one at McGettigans' that the landing area short of the 18th green will not allow a well played bump and run to work effectively. I hope I am wrong and as indicated will report back. Futhermore I think a big rambling green extending towards that great pit of a bunker would make this hole one of the best finishers anywhere. At present, when the wind blows it can be ,like #2, almost unplayable.

#14 can not be held if the green speeds are fast without getting exremely lucky, not that luck shouldn't be part of the game. It just won't hold a shot when the course is firm and fast. Strategy here (back pin, firm green) would be to hit it over and chip back, even for world class players.

Still will repeat my mantra re: Galloway, I love it but it isn't quite what it might have been!!!!

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
The Quarry @ La Quinta is a 6!  I thought the course had some very good holes (especially in the canyon area) but overall that is about where it stands.  I actually down graded the conditioning score I gave it because it was "too perfectly" maincured.  It looked artifical to me, almost sterile.   I might have given the fishing there an 8 but not the golf course!  

The highest I give any course in the Palm Springs area is probably PGA West and that's a 7!

If you do keep emails, see if you can dig up what I sent you.  An 8 is a big difference from a 6!!
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Archie;

You're on, especially if they have hot wings of the "suicidal" variety.  I've developed this addiction to spicy foods that is almost as passionate as my golf course architecture Jones!

Tommy;

I have no doubt that your word is good on Oak Creek.  I've played enough sterile modern courses from Fazio and others to understand your frustration with the lack of interest and strategy.  I've felt the same, and I also respect your opinion implicitly, as you know.  Fortunately, Galloway is not of their flaccid ilk!  I wish you could have seen it.

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
For the record, I dug up that email I sent you in February of 2000!  Here it is below verbatim.  Looks like you remembered  high and I remembered low    At the time I may have rounded up instead of rounding down but the bottomline is that either way, at a 6 or a 7, it still falls outside my personal Top 100.  

---------
Tommy,
Thanks for the email.  As I know you know, reviewing and trying to “rate” golf courses is not as easy as some people think.  How someone feels about a particular course is a very personal thing.  We all place different emphasis on different factors and in the end we form our opinion.  No opinion is right or wrong, it’s just an opinion.  

I have always argued (I may be all wet on this) that the more “great” courses one gets to play, the better chance one has of more accurately accessing the best of the best.  Furthermore, there is no substitute for spending time in the British Isles playing the old courses of the past.  And finally indulging in many of the great golf architecture books goes a long way to understanding the art of course design.  But I’ve realized even doing all this, it doesn’t make that individual’s opinion right or wrong on the quality of a golf course.  They might have more ammunition to argue their case, but that’s about it.  There is no “correct” opinion.  I’m getting off track here but maybe comparing wines is a good analogy for comparing golf courses??

To me The Quarry is another ultra-exclusive ultra-expensive Tom Fazio design (kudos for Tom for winning these types of jobs).  It’s well “constructed” as I’ve found all Fazio courses to be and maintained impeccably to the point where it looks artificial.  But I realize this is what the owners wanted; perfect conditions, beautiful landscaping, trees, streams, ponds, rock outcroppings,….etc.  Money was no object.  The place is very secluded and I remember while playing the canyon holes on the back nine that I felt like my partner and I were the only people on the planet.  The quiet and peacefulness in the early evening back there is deafening.  

I thought there were some interesting fairway and greenside bunker complexes.  But a number of the holes are rather ordinary and several are nearly identical to Estancia and Shadow Creek.  Does that make them good or bad, I don’t know.  Most people never get to play all three courses so they probably would never know or even take notice if they did.

I’m not a big fan of over conditioned courses and as I mentioned above, I thought the perfect conditions looked artificial and it takes away from the design.  Imagine Apache Stronghold being maintained the same way.  It would change everything about the golf course wouldn’t it?  It’s just not “real” golf to me.  But having said that, I had a great day and was treated like royalty.  The golf experience is one I’ll remember for a long time.  We had the course to ourselves, played with one of the pros, and we had a great time.  

So how do you rate the golf course?  Not easily.  Could Fazio have done more?  Sure he could have.  Did he need to?  Probably not.  Would the members even notice?  Probably not.  Did they get what they wanted?  I think they did.  

My overall assessment – about a 7 on Doak’s scale.  It is not Fazio’s best course.  I’d love to hear your opinions on Galloway National in New Jersey.  I think that might be my favorite Fazio design.    

Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Who's on the 5th tee at Galloway?  Mark?  

C'mon fellas...I don't know if we've ever dissected a course hole by hole here before, and it might be interesting to see how the discussion progresses...pro and con.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mark, sorry for the error. But just how far is the distance between and 7 and an 8?

As said before, other then the #12, and 14, Q@LQ is just another over-rated Fazio golf course that HAS to rely on esthetics and superfluous treatment, all to disguise medicore golf. But, that is what I observed from the place. Heaven forbid that there might be some interesting golf architecture there besides a good trout pond. at least for the monies spent.