Wade Hampton GC (1987)

[Matt_Ward]

Bart:

As I stated earlier if you ever do play a George / Tom Fazio layout you will see many of the elements that I spoke about when compared to the solo TF courses that have emerged since then.

I'll repeat an item you failed to acknowledge -- I don't presume anything when I play a new design -- whether it's a TF layout or someone else's. No doubt I have formed a clear opinion on the cumulative nature of the TF courses I have played to date. No more than 20% of the 70+ courses I have played are worthy of repeat play for me. The issue is really about course differentiation -- TF, is like many architects, sometimes they don't really pay attention to the fact that replicating design features over and over is not really bold but often times predictable and lame from an originality perspective.

By the way -- I am a big fan of Grandfather and believe it deserves more recognition that it often gets.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim Nugent:

In ten rounds the following breakdown ...

Wade Hampton = 3

Stone Eagle = 7

I can provide a breakdown of why later if requested.

If many others feel the same way, that makes their relative rankings interesting indeed.  

I'd like to hear your breakdown.  

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

For starters -- Stone Eagle has more variety and differentiation in terms of the actual holes. I also think the greens Doak designed have more challenge than what you see at WH via Fazio.

As I said previously, there are several TF designs that should be rated higher than they are today but for some reason you get plenty of people who see Wade Hampton as the second best course TF's designed outside of Shadow Creek. Frankly, I see both WH and SC as being two of the most overrated clubs he's designed.

One other thing -- the lone strength of WH over Stone Eagle rests with the par-3's -- the ones in Cashiers are quite strong and have ample variety.

Final thought -- neither of the courses would make my personal top 100 in the USA.

[Lawrence Largent]

I was told that Diamond Creeks fairways are built close to USGA Green Specs for superior drainage. This came from two very important people to the project.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
What does Butler National, to use an example of a George/Tom Fazio course, have that many of his solo courses do not?

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Butler is not without controversy -- that's what makes it so unique because it flies against the face of mere conventionality which in so many ways has become the formula for TF courses.

There are holes present that are not meant to accomodate mediocrity. I'm sure you are somewhat familiar with the closing hole -- it's very daring in so many ways and invites the big number for those who dare and can't pull it off. It's certainly edgy and far from the predictable stuff that too often has become the TF motif.

So much of what followed with later TF designs is conventional ho-hum style designs. It seems the aspect of real shotmaking -- likely something his Uncle pushed was a feature that their work together demonstrated. You can see that with a number of holes they did at Butler National.

TF has demonstrated that in some of his works -- most notably Trump National in Bedminster, NJ but far too often you have the urge to return again and again to the postcard looking type holes. Butler doesn't provide that warm and fuzzy feeling -- it's there to shock the system and push for shotmaking results that are at the highest of levels. I only wish the club could return to the TV scene but alas that won't happen.

[John Kirk]

Thanks for all the input.  We rarely discuss Tom Fazio's golf courses.  I have a couple thoughts:

1.  I've heard that Wade Hampton is a spectacularly beautiful place, especially during when the leaves change color.  I consider the natural beauty of the course to be of considerable value when evaluating a course.  Before you dismiss the idea, consider how many of the top 50-100 courses are in unusually great settings.

2.  Perhaps Wade Hampton earned its high ranking 15-20 years ago, when Tom Fazio's work was new and exciting.  His work has seemed to grow more elaborate and sophisticated over the years.  Is that a good thing?  Or is his more subdued work better.

3.  The general consensus here seems to be that Wade Hampton is not significantly better, or in fact inferior, to other Fazio efforts in North Carolina, let alone the rest of the country.  One might conclude that once a course is recognized as an architect's best work, it's very hard to knock it off the mantle as a top 100 course.  It's important to get some consensus or "buzz" about one being better than the others.

4.   There's a lot of talk here about Fazio's template holes.  Do we know this to be a fact?  When Mr. Fazio designs a course, does he take a topographical map and say to himself, "Par 4 template #61 works great here.  And then we'll follow it up with par 3 #10.", and so on.

[John Moore II]

John Kirk-- Great ideas you bring up, hopefully we can use them to further general discussion, rather than just Fazio. I do not think that any of the Top 100 courses have truly indifferent settings. I am sure that some may think that there are some (Pinehurst #2 actually comes to mind as a possiblity) but overall, great courses have great settings. Wade Hampton is no different. I agree with both ideas about great courses generally staying great. Many times I think that this is from the reputation that comes from the course before someone has played it. Usually courses that are thought by many to be great are viewed as great by the next person that plays the club as well. I do not think the idea of a Fazio template extends quite as far as you write, and I know you weren't serious. I do think though, that all architects have 'template' hole ideas that show up in each of their courses. I have played many Gene Hamm designs in this region (he was a regional architect who worked mostly in NC and SC) and I recall having seen on all of his courses a very long straight away par 5. If I thought about it more I may could find other similar holes at clubs. But I do think that all architects have certain holes they try to integrate into the course. (See Strantz and the 'Boomerang' par 5 as well)

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
#18 was one hole that came to mind that is unique. I think the best hole on the course is #7. Unfortunately when I played it last year the pro mentioned part of the membership wants to take out the important trees on both holes, I hope they resist that.

I'm not sure I recall much else that's unique though. Certainly difficult, maybe too much so for 90% of golfers (including me!)

[Bart Bradley]

Matt:

Let me try this and see how it goes.  I still don't agree with you about Fazio's lack of interesting, unique holes.....This exercise may not work but it might lead to some education (mine and/or yours).

Ok this is the 16th hole at the Virginian Golf Club, a Fazio design where I am a member:





I think this hole is unique, interesting and challenging.  I will describe the hole and maybe you can tell me in your vast Fazio experience where this hole fails or all the other courses that have duplicated it.

1.  Longish par 4, slightly uphill with a dogleg fairway

2.  The drive works best if you are long and down the right of the fairway...but there is a very penal bunker guarding the right side for a slight push/slice.  Large slices/pushes will kick to the right and into the hay...lost ball

3. If you miss the fairway left the ball tends to kick left, further into the rough and you are blocked by the large tree on the left....even a drive in the very left of the fairway will require you to challenge the tree to go at any left pin position.


4.  To the right of the green, there is a sharp fall off (probably 20 feet down and a tree guarding the area) making an up and down front the right almost impossible.

5.  There is a swale and bunker to the left of the green.

6.  The green is interesting and significantly contoured...the front is dome shaped so if you miss pin high you have a very difficult up and down...in fact, if the pin is in the right front many of us play for the fairway short of the green which allows for a much better chance of getting up and down.  There is a ridge through the middle of the green and the left half of the green slopes hard from back to front and to the left helping to feed any balls toward a left pin position.


Ok lengthy synopsis and in my opinion, an excellent and challenging hole....visually interesting...lots of strategic elements and I have played no other Fazio holes like it.

Matt and others, what say you ?

Bart

[JMorgan]

Jim:

For starters -- Stone Eagle has more variety and differentiation in terms of the actual holes. I also think the greens Doak designed have more challenge than what you see at WH via Fazio.

As I said previously, there are several TF designs that should be rated higher than they are today but for some reason you get plenty of people who see Wade Hampton as the second best course TF's designed outside of Shadow Creek. Frankly, I see both WH and SC as being two of the most overrated clubs he's designed.

One other thing -- the lone strength of WH over Stone Eagle rests with the par-3's -- the ones in Cashiers are quite strong and have ample variety.

Final thought -- neither of the courses would make my personal top 100 in the USA.

Matt, which Fazio courses would make your Top 50?

[Adam_Messix]

Andy--

As of last week there have been no trees removed on either seven or eighteen.  The pond to the left of seven has been dredged and deepened and the bunkers on the right were rebuilt and deepened slightly.  The eighteenth hole from tee to green is being totally rebuilt, raised two feet on the left side, and sand capped because the hole is the lowest spot on the course and tends to stay wet longer than the rest of the course.  All of the right hand fairway bunkers are being rebuilt as well.  At the moment though, the entire course is under snow.  

[Andy Troeger]

Adam,
Thanks for the info. Those trees in the middle on #7 that guard the second shot really made the hole IMO, I was proud of the par I made there. Those are the only ones that I'd really be that concerned about personally...I think there was a willow nearer the green thats removal wasn't imminent but wouldn't hurt my feelings  

Kind of reminded me of a tougher version of the same strategy used at #11 Blackwolf Run River. Worked well in both instances.

Most unique Fazio hole I've seen is probably #4 at World Woods Pine Barrens. The two at Butler would come next. Estancia (AZ) was pretty by the book.

[John Kirk]

Interestingly, #4 at WW Pine Barrens, one of the few holes I remember from my visit several years ago, is a lot like #4 at Chambers Bay, short but uphill par 5s, all carry over sand to the right half of the green.

[JMorgan]

GD says its raters gives "extra consideration" to shot values because the magazine feels they are the heart of a golf course.  As Top 5 in NC, did you gentlemen find the shot values at WH and DC outweighing other aspects of the course -- design variety, memorability, etc.?

And how would you compare the qualities of these courses -- shot values, etc. -- to a non-mountain Fazio course like Eagle Point or Trump?

Bumping this question ... concerned mostly with shot values on TF courses that many have said repeat themselves or are predictable templates.  What do you think?

[Jim Nugent]

Matt, which Fazio courses would make your Top 50?

Matt, what is your Top 50?  Or Top 25?  

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Butler National was designed as a mega ultra private club. No doubt that element weighed a good deal on what George / Tom Fazio ultimately designed there.

It was not goingto be a resort where the masses would be playing.

I particularly like the par-3 5th and the par-5 7th, to name just two other holes. No doubt many will cringe with the par-3 5th because of the length and penal elements. The thing for me about Butler National was that it wasn't going to be a predictable playable / eye-candy layout that has become in so many ways what TF has become noted for in designing.

Butler National pushed the envelope in a number of ways because mediocre shotmaking simply does not get rewarded.The course is muscular but in the different times I have played it over the years (five times) I have grown to appreciate what the duo provided for Paul Butler.

It is edgy and no doubt controversial and given the fact that it held up well in so many Western Opens earns a plus in my book.

One other thing -- you are 10000% correct -- the par-4 17th is also a fine hole and a solid lead to the 18th which is on my personal short list as one of the best closing holes in the USA I have ever played.

Bart:

Thanks for the photo and description of one particular hole that TF designed. Bart, I'll say this again in the event you missed my previous posts ...

I am not a charter member of the anti TF club. That association is reserved to a few others here on GCA. I've said that over and over again. Got it.

I did say that from the 70+ TF courses that I have personally played I would estimate no more than 20% of that total would be worth my time for repeat play. And of those worth repeat play only a smaller fraction of that total would have a shot at cracking my personal top 100 courses played in the USA.

I never opined TF is incapable in designing quality holes / courses. I did say that from the sheer number of courses I have played -- that far too often TF has fallen into the predictable pattern in designing holes / courses that are more GLOW than SHOW.

Fazio accentuates the twin concept of playability and beauty. It helps that in many instances the developers he works for have sites that are quite attractive. Fazio has understood for quite some time that building courses that engender eye-catching beauty in concert with the native beauty of the existing sites works quite well. When you add into the equation his penchant for overall playability you get a formula that has been good for him and for the developers he has worked for over the years. I'd be more than happy to list numerous examples to support my preceding comments.

Now permit me to address your posting of the hole you analyzed. Not too long ago there was a post from Mike Cirba that essentially was tagged the ANTI TF STRATEGY FORMULA or something along that line. Mike articulated very clearly and with some great comments the point that often TF provides strategic concepts that actually fly against what the hole should provide. His example was a hole at The Ridge at Back Brook in Ringoes, NJ.

Where for art thou Mike Cirba when you need him ?

I'll try to find the particular thread and bump it up for you and others to review.

Bart, please don't go on repeating the untrue proposition that I believe TF is not capable in designing superior courses. I didn't say that -- I did say that far too often he follows a general pattern that falls far below what he can do.

John Kirk:

In reviewing your post a few questions ...

Regarding item #1 -- I don't dispute the value of beauty as a factor for people to consider when playing. However, is beauty the #1 aspect? I don't think so. I see it in a supplementary role -- far too many TF layouts are located on some fascinating pieces of property but have little to show in their overall totality for quality shotmaking, shot values and / or hole diversity / character.

In sum -- far too often people only look at the surface -- and don't dig deep enough to see if there's truly any beef.

Regarding item #2 -- John explain to me how TF's work has "grow(n) more elaborate and sophisticated over the years?" Do you specific examples to post? I enjoy the final sentence you mentioned -- has his work become more subdued and therefore work better. I would state that far too often the work of TF is "subdued" because there's little real beef to accentuate anything more than playability and to use extreme make-up to add to the visual component.

Regarding item #3 --  The issue with ratings is that sometimes courses attain positions of stature and very few people really delve into the question of whether or not that paticular course has real staying power -- especially when held against the light of total comparisons with an architect's future work.

You can see a comparable parallel with Augusta National -- here is a layout that so many people bow before that few have really seen how the fundamental nature of what made Augusta great to begin with has been bastardized with an array of changes (not improvements) that have little, if anything, to deal with what was originally meant for that course.

Candidly, I think TF has done work that is even better than the courses that generally are though of as TF's best layots -- Shadow Creek and then Wade Hampton. SC gets plenty of brownie points because of the story of how the course was built -- the real important question is does the actual course itself have anything that is really compelling from an architectural standpoint? While I like the course and it's solid in many ways -- TF has done far better work in other locations that have not been served with the hype that a Steve Wynn brings to the picture.

Wade Hampton was a break through course for TF. It garnered plenty of praise and became for him a major lift-off in attracting the attention of other developers scattered arond the USA. I like the course but I can name no less than 10 other TF courses where the final products have gone a clear few steps further in terms of real complexity in their design, routing and overall shot values / hole diversity.

John, in short, courses that have attained standing should be able to handle increased scrutiny when reviewed years later. In my mind, Wade Hampton doesn't hold the amount of water that many thought originally.

Regarding item #4 --  You stated, "There's a lot of talk here about Fazio's template holes.  Do we know this to be a fact?"

John, I can only mention the particulars tied to the 70+ TF courses I have played. I can see a definite pattern with a good number of these courses. Candidly, I have also said that TF is not alone -- that other architects follow a formula because in so many ways the reason why they get a future job is because developers or the person springing for the bucks to pay for him likes what they saw in a previous job. TF is not alone is doing such a thing.

In my opinion, I have stated that there are times when TF breaks away from a Happy Meal formula and decides to add a few different wrinkles into the final product. I have listed those examples in the courses I have played. Be more than happy to discuss them or for you to list those TF courses you believe are stellar. It's probable I have played a number of them.

Jim Nugent / JMorgan:

I'll post the answer in my next post.










 

[Bart Bradley]

Tom Fazio is one of the most successful architects in the world. Yet he uses a template in so many of his designs. The bunkering pattern repeats itself frequently -- many times the hole patterns / lengths, etc, etc -- are often mundane and rarely, if ever edgy or dare I say controversial.

The difference being that naked eye appeal is not the same as discerning golf eye appeal.


 I see very, very few TF layouts being noteworthy.

Matt:  These are exerpts from your own post...yes I removed some of the context for the sake of space.  Your posts on this thread clearly state, or at minimum, imply that Fazio doesn't create architecturally interesting holes.  I gave an example of a hole where I thought he produced something fun, unique, strategically complex...This is but one hole I realize...I thought you might have thoughts as to why this hole didn't qualify as architecturally interesting or that is was Fazio formulaic (which is not my experience).  I thought you might use your "discerning golf eye" to tell me what I had missed about this hole.

I understand what you write...That you don't believe you are a TF basher...I do get it...Your posts seem to indicate otherwise, however.

By this time, we all know that you have played 70+ Fazio courses....you have mentioned that numerous times on this thread.  I acknowlege this does give you a broad view of his work...I just don't agree with you conclusions.


Bart

[Matt_Ward]

Bart:

You cite one solitary example to prove your point and you automatically then conclude that whatever the guy designs is at the highest of levels. Let's get real -- OK?

I don't dispute your analysis of the hole in question. But, the real issue is does TF design such courses time after time at the highest of levels? From my sampling size he doesn't. You then conclude that because I don't agree with you 1000% that I must be some sort of TF basher. Geeze Brad, did you ever hear of the word context?

I did mention several TF courses I would play again if the opportunity were present. I also stated a few courses he has designed that would be worthy of being included in my personal top 100 in the USA. However, when I look over the 70+ courses TF has designed that I have played I see a very large percentage of courses that are merely replicas of the others in terms of routing, shot values and hole diversity.

TF and his talented crew have excelled in providing for playability and in merging eye-candy aspects to dovetail with the natural qualities of the top land sites they often get. For most developers of resort and even private sites such a formula has worked very well.

I also stated -- again another point you left out or failed to notice -- there are other architects doing the same thing with a number of their designs. For what it's worth I've provided balance to the application of such a situation and not just centered upon TF.

If you see things differently so be it. The portfolio of courses you have played may present different evidence to you. I can't comment clearly because I don't know which ones you have played that I have played as well.

End of story.





 

[David_Madison]

JMorgan:

Golf Digest double weights the Shot Values category in calculating a course's final point total for ranking purposes; it's not as if we are supposed to give it any special emphasis ourselves.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I thought that WH had slipped a little bit in that the course can now be overpowered, even when soft, whereas when it was built that was far less likely. That would, at least in my rating of the course, reduce the shot values and difficulty scores. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of their intended lengthening.

One of the challenges in rating a course like WH is that the course is groomed for maximum playability for its members - -wide fairways and easy rough, and I've never played the course with cups cut in more challenging positions. Many other courses I see and rate are groomed with tight fairways and penal rough (Hudson National, for example, was an absolute bear in this regard.) Yet I know that WH can easily be put into Hudson National-style grooming. I try to keep it apples-and-apples, but don't want to get very far from rating what I'm actually seeing and playing on that given day.  

[Matt_Ward]

David Madison:

Do you believe Wade Hampton belongs in the top 20 (#18) among Golfweek's Modern Listing?

In your own personal plays of other TF courses which ones would you rate among your top five -- and if you can include a short reason why it would be appreciated.

Thanks ...

[hhuffines]

Matt,

Was hoping you'd list your top 25 but you did cause me to look at the three major magazine lists for Fazio designs.  Seems they can't agree on his courses.

I am interested in World Woods, rated #80 in US by Golf and #25 modern by Golfweek.  However Golf Digest only gives it #12 best in Florida.  Golf Digest has Wade Hampton at #15 which does seem a stretch.

Victoria National is #48 modern in GW but merits no mention from the others.  

Are the two courses at World Woods worth a trip?  Thanks!

[John Kirk]

Hi, finally back in front of the keyboard.

Hart (I think that's right),

I've played each World Woods course, when neither was in top condition.  I had more fun at the Rolling Oaks course, but that's mainly because I literally had the whole course to myself, and played a match between two different balls.

I thought it was good but not great.  I would not recommend a special trip just to see it.

Also, you may notice that Victoria National is ranked very highly by Golf Digest, about #21 in the U.S.

Matt,

It appears to me that Tom Fazio's best modern courses have more bunkers, more water features, more everything.  Both Pronghorn and Forest Creek (newer one) have huge swaths of sand defining the course.  The Madison Club has large, ornate bunkers with sharp edges that must be a real pain to maintain.  The photos at Gozzer Ranch seem to show the same affinity for features.  I've also noticed, while riding a cart at both Aldarra and Madison that the fairways there have this strange contour to them, as if they are purposely graded to provide subtle changes in stance.  While riding a cart on these fairways, you sort of rock back and forth in this rhythmic fashion.  It's odd.

To summarize, like your garage at home, Fazio's courses seem to have more stuff than they did 20 years ago.  

[Matt_Ward]

John Kirk:

Has all the "new stuff" you mentioned added to the overall aspects of architecture -- in sum, has it made those courses more "compelling" than the ones that preceded it?

John, one other thing to keep in mind that TF has used a variety of associates over the years and this can certainly mean different aspects added or kept out from the final product.

I just have to personally wonder if the sheer volume of projects that Team Fazio engages can really be as detailed and as compelling given the sheer workload and deadlines associated with them. No doubt Donald Ross faced this dilemma years and years ago and frankly I don't believe even DR hit home runs with each of his designs.

hhuffines:

Are you asking for my top 25 TF listing of courses played?

In regards to World Worlds I echo what John mentioned. Pine Barrens is a fine layout and one of the best public courses in all of Florida. But realize that the benchmark for greatness in Florida is a bit different -- at least for me -- when you stack that up against the rest of the USA. If you head to Florida and can make your way over to the east coast -- play Ocean Hammock by Jack Nicklaus in Palm Coast -- between Daytona and St. Augustine. The course is certainly interesting and one of the Sunshine State's best public layouts IMHO.

If you need another back-up closer to the World Woods area you can do no real harm in playing Golden Ocala -- I think the name is still the same. Very good replica-type course and has some interesting terrain / holes. A more modest alternative is Crystal River.

In regards to Victoria National I would put it on my short list of top TF courses. Some don't like it here on GCA but I see much of that feeling tied to their personal ties to more classic school architecture.

[John Kirk]

I'm not saying the new courses are better or worse.  It does appear the consensus is that Wade Hampton, Sahdow Creek, and Victoria National, courses he designed about 10 years ago, are his best work.

One thing that Mr. Fazio should be complimented on is his willingness to change what he's doing.  The newer course look quite different.  I'm very intrigued by the Pronghorn course, and was surprised it didn't score a bit higher in the recent rankings.

Really, I don't know jack about Fazio's courses.  I've played three or four of them (original Pelican Hill, Aldarra, both World Woods).