Why doesn't Fazio respect GCA?

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Or, this is a brainstorm here...Fazio IS a classicist but believes that only HIS designs are classics. Thus repeating them as they are all classic as they are all classics as they are all classical as they...my Dogma!  The more he builds, the more HE builds!  Why was I so blind?!   HE is becoming a CLASSIC!    

  Or I'm completely wrong and just being spastically pugilistic.   I only hope I'm not turning into Ellsworth M. Toohey.

[Patrick_Mucci]

rhobbs,

Jupiter Hills is a pretty good golf course.

Do you have your Fazios Correct ?

[Andy Hodson]

Well said, Jeff

I have said it on an earlier thread that a rather strict adherence to the classics, the golden age of architecture, can cause a blind eye to modern gems.

I think the topic prior had to do with the horseshoes in greens. I may have been wrong with my assessment of them but I still stand behind my thought that if horseshoes were a modern invention they would be lambasted on this site.

[redanman]

Fazio  is quite honestly most closely allied with Stephen Spielberg.  The best, right?  How many really good films has SS done, etc?   Commercially successful does not equal great.

[Andy Hodson]

Schindler's List may be the Pine Valley of films.

[Scott Seward]

Everything Fazio looks pretty but two irritants - he is obssesed with hiding the cart path to the point that they are routed away from play to an absurd degree. Not a big deal to walkers except his courses tend to be impossible to walk.

[TEPaul]

Jeff Brauer:

I know you and I have respect for your opinions, but I think you're misreading Fazio's reaction to Golfclubatlas. Of course, realistically we're just a few fanatics, but apparently now fairly visible ones.

Shackelford said it accurately in his response to the SI article--Golfclubatlas is critical and passionate, sometimes thoughtful but definitely tenacious--something that may have been missing in architectural analysis and critique for maybe many decades! Golfclubatlas is a new take and a new wave because it is so passionate and its isn't afraid to speak its opinion.

Tom Fazio has been revered for at least a few decades now! Why? Simply because he's high production. If he does so many courses, the public logically assumes he must be the best!

Golfclubatlas seems to have exposed the fact that quantity is NOT the real prescription for valid architecture or ultimately architectural success, quality is!

If you're an architect what would be of better quality--producing 36 good and original holes per year or 136 holes per year? Basically that's a total no-brainer, we know it and so does Fazio--and that's probably why Fazio answered this article!

We're not anti business, Jeff--just pro quality golf course architecture.

[Brad Klein]

Slag, nice try, but you're totally wrong.

Fazio really dpesn't care about classical anything. He's concerned about building in the present. About moving dirt. Spending money. Technical perfection. Visibility. No blindness, No intrigue or mystery.

I've played 40 Fazio courses. I've spent a lot of time with him. I've seen him in action. He's a very simple man who worked really hard for twenty years before he ever made penny. Never went beyond high school - you think he doesn't feel a little defensive about that? He's no great intellectual. he's a craftsman who would rather build than talk about it - or read GCA, for that matter.

Now after twenty years of brutally hard work he's cashing in, talks too much about all the money he makes, and is basically an extraordinarily gifted builder. I'm always amazed at the quality, consistency of his courses. The grassing is fine, the peripheral native areas are fully nativized. Goodness, he would rather build on a parking lot than a sand dune. He has total creative possibility. I think it's admirable. I just wish he'd do less work and take more risk with using land than blowing it over and starting over again.

It also drives me nuts that he really is only interested in his own courses. Dunlop and oithers are right in that Fazio looks at some older cuirses and at some other modern stuff. But he doesn't pay it much attention. He really just wants to build more new courses and surpass himself. Which he does in a way each time.

I have less of a problem with Fazio than with the clients who hire him and think he's the only thing going. They're the ones who have no clue. Just too much money. Now if they ever could get themselves to read GCA . . .

[Slag_Bandoon]

 "Golf architects attempt to express their deepest values in their creations, although they are constantly forced to weigh one important consideration against another.  The integrity of what they say (Ron Whitten) in exercising their freedom (Thomas Fazio) depends largely upon their vision (Thomas Doak) and their judgement.  The end result is a work of art by an artist who, when he or she deems it best, overlooks rules of thumb, such as those presented in this book, and takes responsibility for doing so."  

  Excerpt from preface of Golf Course Design by Robert Muir Graves & Geoffrey Cornish.

  This obviously was written pre GolfClubAtlas.com     Could Ron Whitten be replaced in that text by armchair archies?   I'm not willing or able to step into that spotlight but I do believe that GCA is important for the integrity of the craft.  So is a voice of many more valuable than the voice of a highly qualified journalist?  I don't know.  What effect does a qualified critic have upon an architect?
  I can say that the internet has put some pressure on standard thinking.  I wasn't a golfer, or even around much, but how many RTJ, Sr. courses were given a bad review when completed? (Not that they're bad)  There's a new barometer and it's not always going to be a sunny day in Realville.    
   Nevertheless, in the future, I personally will try to center my notions around features and benefits of a layout.

[John_Conley]

I'm always amazed at the quality, consistency of his courses. The grassing is fine, the peripheral native areas are fully nativized. Goodness, he would rather build on a parking lot than a sand dune. He has total creative possibility. I think it's admirable.

Brad:  Great post!  I asked a rather prominent club pro who has been involved in development about Fazio and he said, "When one guy is getting all the work, it's no surprise the others all try to design like him."  The comment about how the anger should be directed at those who hire him without a second thought is spot-on.  Tom Fazio is faulted by many on this board for the very things that make hiring him a "safe" choice.

[Paul Richards]

You will understand why Tom Fazio doesn't respect GCA when you've seen him speak before a group of golfing nuts.

His whole spiel is that he "makes a lot of money, pays his people well, and donates some to charity."

That is the crux of everything about the business that Fazio knows.

There was a thread on this subject back in March.  Check it out.

[Mike_Young]

I don't see it as a "respect GCA" issue.  If this were a website that discussed the mechanics of the game would Woods, Els or any of them care what was discussed?
Mike

[TEPaul]

John Conley:

If one reads the quote of Brad Klein you used they would likely get one impression of how Brad feels about Tom Fazio.

If, however, they also read the next sentence from Brad's post they would probably get a different impression. I'm not saying one without the other is good or bad, right or wrong but to include the next sentence would definitely give someone a more accurate understanding of what Brad Klein is saying about Tom Fazio!

[A_Clay_Man]

JakaB asks us which great artist blah blah blah. Are you calling TF a great artist?

I think in the context of GCA, Jack Nicklaus has litsened to critics and has become a better designer. WHat do you think?

Keating is the perfect analogy, giving the client what they want while exuding greatness. Just because the majority of people don't know what great is, doesn't mean everyone should lower thier standards. I can gaurantee that if there is enough time, the test will out.

The Grisham comparison is dead on, and mentioning a writer(Rand) whos words were perfectly placed in the same thread as Grisham's, only proves that they are on opposite ends of Spectrum. Which does't exclude those who actually prefer McDonalds, it just shows that ones man garbage is another's feast.

Of the Fazio I've seen, World woods stands out as having the most number of memorable holes and I actually recall having to make strategic decisions on more than one tee box.

I think what is most critisizable (is it a word?) is that with the budgets the guy can command, there is not enough return of quality imaginative golf to justify the expenditure. Great landscapes, just not great golf.

[George Pazin]

I do think one thing needs to be clarified here, with regard to the many people, both on this site & off, who claim bias & bashing: I believe that on this site most members follow Tom Doak's lead in that they are trying to discern the difference & learn more about the truly special courses versus the simply good. As Tom states in The Confidential Guide..., anything he rates over a 5 gets his seal of approval(I think, if I recall correctly). He then goes on to say that his book is slanted toward trying to discern the differences between what he rates as 7s, 8s, 9s & 10s, to paraphrase somewhat.

I think that most of the people accused repeatedly as biased bashers are largely doing the same. I don't think many would argue that Fazio's courses are bad, simply that they are maybe simply good & not truly great. Kind of goes back to your definition of great (similar to that Ken Venturi thread a few weeks back).

[George Pazin]

One thing this group has always respected & encouraged is differing opinions that are well thought out & reasoned. Darn near everyone on the site is on it to learn as well as simply discuss - it doesn't take a genius to see why Fazio's stated views, not to mention actual actions with regard to classic courses, would rankle most on board.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I too give Fazio credit for commenting - it showed some courage, either that or bad judgement. (His photograph appears with a quote about 'lazy and stupid architects', ouch) I suspect Rees Jones refused to be associated with anything to do with this site, which is not surprising (and he is probably glad he refused).

The problem with the idea of Fazio respecting or not respecting GCA is that it gives the impression that GCA has single voice. There are certainly passionate Fazio critics, but there are also quite a few Fazio fans and many who fall in between. And the most severe criticism has come as a result of his work on masterworks like Merion, ANGC and Riviera, the same is true with the criticism Rees's has recieved (for his 'renovation' work). But on the hand there are a number of appologists for both of these men's involvement on these projects.

And I don't think it is necessary for either man to read what is written on the site or to 'respect' the site to be effected by it. Fazio's quote and Rees's apparent refusal is proof that they do know what is being written and are effected by it in some way.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

"But on the hand there are a number of appologists for both of these men's (Rees Jones & TF) involvement on these projects."

Tom, to be clear, I do not serve as an 'apologist' for Rees Jones or any other architect. To lump past comments in such a way speaks volumes about your understanding of the work Rees Jones has done. Since you have gleaned so much from observing photos instead of actual field visits I would say that's a bit under whelming in one's homework. How you can glean such Carnac type comments is an ability I envy?

Let me also point out that I do not serve as a front man for any architect. I assess courses -- not architects.

I have spoken to Rees and he certainly hears of the comments that come from GCA. He also would hope that people who issue comments would be most diligent in actually playing the courses in question before pontificating about this or that. Is that too much to ask?

[Jerry Kluger]

I like the analogy to Steven Spielberg but I don't think you get the impression from Spielberg that his way is the only way as he recognizes the work of others and accepts criticism with character(Mind you I take great exception to his espousing his political beliefs like someone who has some special knowledge and we need to follow what he says.)Spielberg has made some really fine movies and he has also made some dogs; so too has Fazio but you get the impression that Fazio would not accept any criticism of his work and would argue until he is blue in the face that every course he created is a positive and memorable golf experience.  Galloway National is to me a great course; Shadow Creek is extraordinary for what it is and where it is, and the short course at Pine Valley is exactly what the members wanted and do they not have the right to do so and is it not an enjoyable golfing experience?  

I just get the impression that Pete Dye, whom I've never met and is surely as well recognized as Fazio as one of the most commercially successful golf course designers working today, would be much easier to discuss his designs with and would accept what others have to say about his courses without blowing a fuse.  You can almost see an evolution in his work without losing what I would call an almost signature look to his courses.  He is not trying to impress with what he could create rather what he did create from the land he was given.  

Where we go from here is to not go where Fazio has gone and think that we know all and accept no other way.  There is room for Fazio along with Dye, Doak, Hanse and so on but not one to the exclusion of all others.

[Ed_Baker]

Excellent posts gentlemen.

My take on TF, he's the modern era prolific champion of good and very good golf courses, he has thus far failed at producing great courses.The most serious critisism may be that he gets far more "at bats" on his own terms than many of his contemporaries and continues to hit singles and doubles. He may be the modern Tom Bendelow with money!

As far as his "restoration" work... well, at the very least its mislabeled, it is remodelling or renovation.

Finally, if he doesn't care what Ross,MacKenzie,Tillie or Fownes did, he certainly isn't going to pay any attention to the opinions of Pizzaman and his friends.

[Allan Long]

Maybe I missed something. When has Fazio ever talked about his respect for the classic architects. All one has to do is read his book, and you will understand that he doesn't think much of them. If I read the passage "so called Golden Age architects" one more time, I may have just thrown his book in the fire (had I not paid so much for it). I don't know the man or profess to know what he thinks, but his actions speak loudly. This is the same man who said that ANGC is not really a MacKenzie course.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
A little sensitive aren't we? I don't believe I mentioned your name.

Pointing out that an architect is engaged a remodeling as opposed to a restoration or criticizing an architect that claims he admires the work of Travis or Ross or Tillinghast  and then designs over top of them is one thing. Rating or evaluating an individual golf course on its supposed merits alone is another. You really should not confuse the two.

The first involves considerable historical research as well as study of golf architecture. The second involves showing up on the first tee ready to assess based on whatever criteria you bring along with you.

Because I was referring to Fazio and Rees Jones involvement with past masterworks perhaps you can detail, based on your historical understanding and research, which courses they have sensitively restored. I take you are not bothered by an architect falsely characterizing their work. Thats fine, to each his own, but there are others who appreciate the history of golf design and the exceptional works of the past --- and would like to see them preserved and protected.

Your post is a perfect illustration of the diversity of opinion and the point I was trying to make.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

You didn't have to say my name directly but I can take a hint when I see it. You can spin it anyway you like. Please don't bash those who happen to have a different take than you and characterize them as "apologists." If you want to say "diversity of opnion" that's one thing, but lay off the demeaning characterizations. You somehow see your role as the true defender of what constitutes "restoration." I believe courses can be "restored" without complete duplications down to the smallest detail. You would see that as being a new course. We can bandy this back and forth until the cows come home. Suffice to say -- we have different interpretations on this point.

I try to get out to the courses in question Tom. I don't sit home in my comfy living room chair and make assessments from photos alone. Botton line -- you want some respect -- how about showing some?

Nuff said ...

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
Easy Mathew! No need to be so defensive.

I've always thought it was important to have a historical understanding of the past before you could characterize something as a restoration (or not). In my opinion it is important differentiate between a remodeling or a renovation and restoration -- that is the case in the other arts. And as I have said before a restoration does not necessarily have to be an exact duplication, but it surely is not a redesign. If one is interested in studying the art of golf design and the history of golf design, it is helpful to know who did what. I know that ain't your bag - which is fine.

I think it is great you see as many courses out as you see, I see my share but not nearly as many as many as you have in your capacity as a Golf Digest panelist. (I'm always impressed my those aficinados who began seeking great courses before they became panelists, as opposed to the other way around) I try to ballance my travel with a considerable amount of historical research -- and my chair isn't all that comfortable.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

My passion for playing and reviewing a slew of courses happened long before I became involved with the Golf Digest ratings panel in 1984 at age 27. I've been searching out all types of courses since my days in high school in the early 70's. The passion to see with my OWN TWO EYES has never diminished.

I've also developed a broad network of key people I can reach out to regarding different developments that take place throughout the USA as a golf writer.

Hope this helps your understanding as you sit in your comfy (or not so comfy) chair.