Tom Fazio interview with Golf Digest

[John Kirk]

I for one enjoy Fazio courses. They may be missing some strategic elements, but you gotta admit his courses are drop dead gorgeous to look at.

Richard,

Can you develop the bit about the missing "strategic elements" just a little, perhaps citing where they're absent in Fazio's work and present in, say, Hanse's Rustic Canyon?  Are strategic courses those that feature shortish holes with relatively wide fairways and difficult green complexes?  Is the ability by the higher handicappers to use a putter around the green a big part of it?  Just like with walking and fast play, I hear a lot about strategy from GCA.com types but seldom see it in real life.

The vast majority of Fazio courses I've played provide ample opportunity for different types of shots.  In addition to being visually attractive, a big plus in my book, is that his courses are invariably challenging in most facets of the game, provide great variety, and are typically maintained and set-up to promote the architecture.  True, his courses do require the golfer to get the ball off the ground, on some holes for as much as 150 yards, depending on the tee, but I think that the concept that a good course is one that can be played by all types of golfers has been successfully disputed if not largely discredited.

It is impossible to read all the negative stuff about Fazio, often from people who have very little experience with his work, and not wonder how much the populist hatred of "the rich" underlies it.  After all, getting a $2 Million fee and having a $30 Million budget appears unseemingly.  But, just like some leading PGA touring pros are thankful of Tiger's impact on purses and the game, I suspect that some of the better architects are likewise grateful that Fazio has raised the pricing umbrella for their services.  As one who has played a considerable amount of golf over the last 30 years, there is no question in my mind that the average golfer at every price point has much better courses to play, and that Fazio has contributed disproportionately to this.

I don't know if Fazio is a better architect than Bill Coore, Tom Doak, or Gil Hanse.  I have heard several less well-known architects wish that they had the opportunity to work on a golf course with a generous budget.  It makes sense that with that much money to build a course, much should be expected.  From what I've played, Fazio seems to deliver time and time again. 

Lou,

I haven't read all the way to the bottom of the page yet, but this is a wonderful contribution to this thread.

I am enjoying this thread very much.  I don't have much to offer; just learning something.

[Ben Sims]

David,

I agree.  But I also liken it to the 1% of the world that doesn't like Tiger because he wins.  True, I don't like Fazio's designs.  I don't like that me and my beer drinking buddies--given the types of budgets he is given--could probably come up with something satisfactory for golf.  I hate containment mounding.  I hate waterfalls and I hate useless bunkers (like the one on 10 at ANGC, wasn't that a Fazio?)

But. BUT!!! He is an ambassador for the game.  He is considered by many--many with a LOT more luquidity than I, I might add--to be one of the designers you reach for when you need something marketable.  It is blatantly obvious that he does do quite a few things worth mentioning as good.  Such as his charities and his relationship with family. He's not the devil.  He's just an architect whose work we as a collective on this site aren't too wild about. 

I hope that most of you will understand that I am not defending this man.  Nor do I remotely enjoy his brand of golf one iota as much as some other guys' work--guys that are happy to be involved in frank architecture discussion with the unwashed masses, me included.  But stringing this guy up like he's the worst person in golf?  I just don't think he's in a category with Kelly Tilghman yet.

[Richard Choi]

Lou,

I didn't say Fazio courses had NO strategic value, I just said it is just not as diverse.

For example, almost every Fazio courses that I have played have been very lush, very green, and very soft. It is almost impossible to play the bump and run on any Fazio courses I have ever played. And ask Jordan or anybody else I played with at KP, I use a bump and run whenever I can (even when Jordan wanted me to hit a wedge:) ).

One of the most often used Fazio design element is the visually stacked bunkers which look like they are right on top of each other from the tee. This usually means there are bunkers on both side of the hole and there are usually no bailout areas. Sure I can lay up short, but that really is not much of an option when the second shots are so long.

I have never seen a Fazio course where I see a hole like the #1, #9, or #17 at Kapalua Plantation or #10 (and host of others) at Ballyneal where there is dramatic rise and fall of the fairway and there are relatively small ideal landing area versus a large sloped areas where you approach shots get progressively more difficult.

I still do like Fazio courses. They are very pretty to look at and quite fun to play. However, they just don't present a kind of rubics cube that some other architects throw at you.

[Richard Choi]

I also have a theory on why so many here believe that Fazio uses template holes over and over again.

I believe this is due to the fact that Fazio usually moves a lot of dirt and shapes the hole quite a bit. In the process, you are going to get similar looking holes as Fazio and his shapers have certain tendencies and those tendencies are what make the visual connection between various holes from his courses.

For designers like Doak, C&C, and others who move much less dirt (especially with sites with a lot of natural movement), the land form is much more random as it is done by nature and not man. Thus, holes become much more unique and people won't necessarily make the connection from one hole to the next.

I would say that Tom is certainly not the worst offender for using template holes. Every time I play a Palmer Design course I feel dejavu frequently. I mean, must EVERY Palmer course have a copy of the Bay Hill 18th?

[Brian Phillips]

I hate waterfalls and I hate useless bunkers (like the one on 10 at ANGC, wasn't that a Fazio?)

Ben,

That is a MacKenzie bunker if you are talking about the one in the middle of the fairway.  I won't tell why it is in the middle of the bunker as you can find that out yourself.

Fazio seems like a very nice guy.  I have not played any of his courses so I cannot judge him whatsover.

[Mike Sweeney]

To the Fazio-Must-Be-Doing-Something-Right-Because-He-Is-Rich-and-Popular crowd.  Lord knows that Fazio is not criticized anywhere else in the wide world of golf.  Can't people on a website that says it is "presented to promote frank commentary on golf course architecture" be allowed to criticize his work as much as they want without constantly having to acknowledge what a great guy he is, how popular his courses are and how he satisfies his clients or, alternatively, be as "commercially successful in our respective profession" as him?

 

Of course, but there needs to be a balance. I also would ask similar to recognizing some good that Fazio has built, that people recognize that Doak is not a full time minimalist or a pure restoration architect. There is no Flynn in the new 17th at Atlantic City, which I like but Mike Cirba does not. It is more Dye than Old Dead Guy, and Doak's work or lack there of on the 12th at Garden City is an old conversation along with a few other holes there where Tom left his mark at that historic club. My guess is that Tom wants to restore the 12th, but again he is a contractor to the club and must compromise his values to some degree.

The argument could be made that Fazio is more pure to his beliefs. He believes that his courses are better that the Old Dead Guys and professes no passion for their work. Thus Doak is a sellout and Fazio is the pure architect, in terms of values. 

[Michael Powers]

Now that I know that his favorite movies are "Singing in the Rain" and "The Sound of Music" my life is complete.....what a joke.

[Andy Troeger]

Richard,
I like C & C a lot, but even after playing 4 of their courses I'm already seeing significant repetition of features. They're good features and fun holes so I don't mind especially since they might be used in a slightly different fashion.

Every designer after enough courses is going to start repeating themselves--it mainly depends on whether you like the features they are repeating!

[John Nixon]

[George Pazin]

Richard,
I like C & C a lot, but even after playing 4 of their courses I'm already seeing significant repetition of features. They're good features and fun holes so I don't mind especially since they might be used in a slightly different fashion.

Every designer after enough courses is going to start repeating themselves--it mainly depends on whether you like the features they are repeating!

I'd be interested in threads regarding both of these ideas - seriously, I'm not trying to be a pain.

[Garland Bayley]

I also have a theory on why so many here believe that Fazio uses template holes over and over again.

I believe this is due to the fact that Fazio usually moves a lot of dirt and shapes the hole quite a bit. In the process, you are going to get similar looking holes as Fazio and his shapers have certain tendencies and those tendencies are what make the visual connection between various holes from his courses.

For designers like Doak, C&C, and others who move much less dirt (especially with sites with a lot of natural movement), the land form is much more random as it is done by nature and not man. Thus, holes become much more unique and people won't necessarily make the connection from one hole to the next.

I would say that Tom is certainly not the worst offender for using template holes. Every time I play a Palmer Design course I feel dejavu frequently. I mean, must EVERY Palmer course have a copy of the Bay Hill 18th?

Good post Richard.

Reminiscent of "A first-class architect attempts to give the impression that everything has been done by nature and nothing by himself, whereas a contractor tries to make as big a splash as possible and impress committees with the amount of labor and material he has put into the job." Alister MacKenzie

And of, "God builds golf links and the less man meddles the better for all concerned." Herbert Fowler

[Scott Warren]

Some interesting points made. I have a few questions.

How many of a designer's courses do you need to have played to be able to pass judgement on their overall quality/ability?
Would the number of courses required above vary greatly depending on how many the architect has designed?
Should the commercial success of an architect's course/whole portfolio count?

cheers,
Scott

[Tom_Doak]

Scott W:

I don't think there is a number of courses you can rely on to judge an architect's overall ability.  It only takes one special course to realize that an architect has real talent ... after that it's a question of how often he is able to deploy it, and how diverse his abilities are.  There are a lot of architects who show something special early on, get a following, and then repeat themselves forever after.

Should commercial success count?  If you are a developer who cares about commercial success, absolutely.  If you are a critic who cares only about good golf, not at all.  But we're arguing both points at once here, and good golf is subjective, anyway.

[Lou_Duran]

As it is said, a picture is worth a thousand words.

To the Fazio-Must-Be-Doing-Something-Right-Because-He-Is-Rich-and-Popular crowd.  Lord knows that Fazio is not criticized anywhere else in the wide world of golf.  Can't people on a website that says it is "presented to promote frank commentary on golf course architecture" be allowed to criticize his work as much as they want without constantly having to acknowledge what a great guy he is, how popular his courses are and how he satisfies his clients or, alternatively, be as "commercially successful in our respective profession" as him?

 

Of course they should be allowed to criticize as their heart/psyche/peer group dynamics require.  However, they should not expect to be given a free pass and allowed to go unchallanged.  I take no umbrage when anything I say about Rustic Canyon- even wind speeds during a specific round- is contradicted or discredited by its loyal proponents.  You may not appreciate the importance of commercial success as legitimate affirmation of someone's work product.  In this instance, I do.

Lou,

I didn't say Fazio courses had NO strategic value, I just said it is just not as diverse.

For example, almost every Fazio courses that I have played have been very lush, very green, and very soft. It is almost impossible to play the bump and run on any Fazio courses I have ever played. And ask Jordan or anybody else I played with at KP, I use a bump and run whenever I can (even when Jordan wanted me to hit a wedge:) ).

One of the most often used Fazio design element is the visually stacked bunkers which look like they are right on top of each other from the tee. This usually means there are bunkers on both side of the hole and there are usually no bailout areas. Sure I can lay up short, but that really is not much of an option when the second shots are so long.

I have never seen a Fazio course where I see a hole like the #1, #9, or #17 at Kapalua Plantation or #10 (and host of others) at Ballyneal where there is dramatic rise and fall of the fairway and there are relatively small ideal landing area versus a large sloped areas where you approach shots get progressively more difficult.

I still do like Fazio courses. They are very pretty to look at and quite fun to play. However, they just don't present a kind of rubics cube that some other architects throw at you.

     

I didn't say that you said "Fazio courses had NO strategic value".  Why do you guys typically rely on the proverbial strawman to try to make your point?  I asked you to "develop the bit about the missing 'strategic elements' ", to which your reply implies that Fazio courses are too soft to allow the bump and run you like and that his "stacked bunkers" are too far out for your game leaving you no options and long second shots.

As Matt Ward notes, it is dangerous to reach broad, strongly-felt conclusions based on relatively little exposure to the subject matter (and I expand this maxim well beyond golf course architecture).  In regards to Fazio, I can tell you that even with my limited exposure to his work- some 10% to 15% of his original designs- I've seen MANY opportunities to bump and run the ball, including some holes like #17 at Dallas National that actually invite the ground game.  And because he pays very close attention to irrigation and drainage, his courses can be adapted to whatever style the members and customers prefer.  Yes, it is hard to believe, but not everyone wants their golf to be played on the ground.

Likewise, his bunkering schemes are relatively varied.  Some bunkers sit back from the line of play; some challenge the shots directly.  I've never got the feeling from his courses of excessive, punitive bunkering ala some of RTJ courses such as Firestone-South.  Perhaps you were playing the wrong set of tees and/or have a personal preference for relatively few bunkers.   Personally, I think bunkers are one of the major design features that can make a course very distinctive, and the occasional non-functional/eye candy is fine with me for the market he is employed to serve.

Last but not least, you talk about "variety" yet you cite courses by two architectural groups which, with limited portfolios, tend to rely on similar formulas- shortish courses with wide playing corridors, rustic bunkering, and somewhat wild green complexes.  Personally, I too very much enjoy their work, but I find a great deal more variety in Fazio's body of work.  BTW, in terms of moving dirt, you may wish to ask Mr. Doak about The Rawls Course at Texas Tech.  If I am not mistaken, some two million c.y. were moved.  The course appears remarkably "natural", which is what matters anyways.  For the most part, Fazio does a great job of "correcting" Mother Nature's mistakes (and if you have been to Texas, she made a few here).

Some interesting points made. I have a few questions.

How many of a designer's courses do you need to have played to be able to pass judgement on their overall quality/ability?
Would the number of courses required above vary greatly depending on how many the architect has designed?
Should the commercial success of an architect's course/whole portfolio count?

cheers,
Scott

Certainly you jest.  But if you are serious:

1) the greater of 25 courses or 10% of the portfolio.   
2) yes, see #1.
3) only if you like the architect or his work, and it helps make your point.

   Obviously, you pose a question that has no clear answer.  I know guys who have seen 100 courses and have a hard time remember anything more than very general attributes of each course (e.g. it was in good shape, or it had a lot of water).  I also know a guy who has played over 1000 and can probably tell you about specific undulations on greens of a course he played once six years ago.

I will also say that evaluating a golf course and assessing an architect's ability are two fairly different things.  The latter requires far more information, thought, and analysis to do it justice.  In my opinion, we are way too casual and cavalier on this site offering opinions of people and attributing motives to them.
 

[David Kelly]

David,

I agree.  But I also liken it to the 1% of the world that doesn't like Tiger because he wins. 

This has nothing to do with whether we "like" Tom Fazio and everything to do with whether we like his work.  The difference between him and Tiger is that we know that Woods is objectively better than the golfers he competes against because he wins more tournaments.  The argument for and against Fazio is purely subjective. But making those arguments is what this website is for I thought.

I hate waterfalls and I hate useless bunkers (like the one on 10 at ANGC, wasn't that a Fazio?)

The provenance of that bunker has already been mentioned but what was interesting this year is I almost saw someone go in it for the first time I can remember.  I forget who it was but he punched out of the trees and the ball rolled down the fairway headed for the MacKenzie bunker but was kept
by the rake.

[David Kelly]

You may not appreciate the importance of commercial success as legitimate affirmation of someone's work product.  In this instance, I do.

Of course I am sure you know that that wasn't my point and the phrase, " "commercially successful in our respective profession" was written by the person who posted it to say that unless we were as prominent in our chosen field as Fazio we have no right to ciriticize him.

That's what I object to about the tone of some posts.  I don't care if someone thinks he is the greatest architect whoever lived.  I've played many courses of his that I enjoyed to one degree or the other.  But to say that because he is rich, successful, a good family man, a great giver to charities and hardly ever sick at sea to criticize him is unfair, based on jealousy or biased is ridiculous.

[Lou_Duran]

You may not appreciate the importance of commercial success as legitimate affirmation of someone's work product.  In this instance, I do.

Of course I am sure you know that that wasn't my point and the phrase, " "commercially successful in our respective profession" was written by the person who posted it to say that unless we were as prominent in our chosen field as Fazio we have no right to ciriticize him.

That's what I object to about the tone of some posts.  I don't care if someone thinks he is the greatest architect whoever lived.  I've played many courses of his that I enjoyed to one degree or the other.  But to say that because he is rich, successful, a good family man, a great giver to charities and hardly ever sick at sea to criticize him is unfair, based on jealousy or biased is ridiculous.

Agree.  And I have no issue with the criticism that his courses should be a step above given the amount of money he is entrusted with to build them.  But at least on this site, I get the impression that money and not his courses are at the root of the criticism.  I drive a 1998 Dodge Ram truck, but still admire (as opposed to hold in contempt) a BMW or MB SL.  I would never argue that mine is as good or that it gets me from point A to point B in similar comfort, safety, and style.

As to ANGC's #10 fairway bunker, and I don't mean to jump on the poster, but the misattribution happens far too often here.  I can't recall seeing anyone in that bunker- I didn't know it was reachable from the tee- but I really like it.  It just seems to fit, though I have a hard time envisioning it protecting the original green.   

[Matt_Ward]

David Kelly:

Quantify specifically the total number of TF courses you have played and if possible the range of states where such plays have happened.

I concur your thoughts this discussion is not about the wholesome nature of TF -- but of the work he has done. I also opined previously that far too many people provide a blanket assertion on an architect's work when they have not played a representative sampling of that person's contributions.

Be curious to know the five best TF you have played ?

The five worst ?

Thanks for your attention to this.

[Greg Tallman]

Lou:

Let me turn your question on its head:  can you cite a couple of Tom Fazio golf holes which you thought were really compelling strategically?

Anything like, say, the 12th hole at Ballyneal, where if you can drive it tight to the left side you get a good angle and look at a severe green, but if you leak the drive right, you're coming in blind from a tougher angle?  (I don't know Rustic Canyon well enough to cite it. )

For that matter have you ever heard Tom Fazio excited about a cool golf hole that he's built somewhere?

Tom,

With all due respect, how do you benefit from piling on Fazio? An, no I am not a huge Fazio fan.

[Andy Troeger]

Richard,
I like C & C a lot, but even after playing 4 of their courses I'm already seeing significant repetition of features. They're good features and fun holes so I don't mind especially since they might be used in a slightly different fashion.

Every designer after enough courses is going to start repeating themselves--it mainly depends on whether you like the features they are repeating!

I'd be interested in threads regarding both of these ideas - seriously, I'm not trying to be a pain.

George,
I'm not going to have much Internet access the next 4-5 days to get them started--you (or someone else) is welcome to take them and run with it though!

[David Kelly]

David Kelly:

Quantify specifically the total number of TF courses you have played and if possible the range of states where such plays have happened.


Be curious to know the five best TF you have played ?

The five worst ?

Thanks for your attention to this.

Based on a list I found on the web here are the courses I have played although I am sure that I missed a few:

California:
Pelican Hill North
Pelican Hill South
Primm Valley Lakes
Primm Valley Desert
The Preserve
Del Mar
Oak Creek
Bighorn Canyons
The Quarry
Vintage Club

Florida:
WW Pine Barrens
WW Rolling Oaks
Black Diamond Ranch - Quarry
Black Diamond Ranch - Ranch
Osprey Ridge
Pelican's Nest
Hunter's Green
Gateway
Champions at Summerfield
Bayou Club

New Jersey:
Galloway National
Pine Hill

Arizona:
Estancia

Colorado:
Cordillera

Kansas:
Flint Hills National

Illinois:
The Glen Club

and then there are the renovations he did like Riviera and other courses he worked on like Presidential and PGA National.

The courses I really liked were WW Pine Barrens, Flint Hills National, Galloway National, Black Diamond Ranch and Estancia. 

Courses I know I did not like were both Pelican Hill courses, Del Mar, Oak Creek and some of the Florida courses like Gateway and Champions.  Most of his courses fall into a gray area that represent nice, solid, pretty unmemorable courses.

[Matt_Ward]

David K:

Thanks for the listing -- I count 26 of them.

That's a good number and it's spread to both coasts -- with a few sprinkled in from Mid-America.

I said this before -- sample size does matter. If people have only played 4-5 TF courses and they happen to be from one state predominantly that leave me wondering if the sample size really reflects a share worthy of making a broad comment on his capacity for designing stellar courses.

I said tis previously -- of the 75+ TF courses I have played -- no more than 20% would rank aas being noteworthy of a return play. From that grouping there are a number of his layouts that are indeed excellent and worthy of national acclaim. No doubt the sheer size and volume of what TF and his firm create does mean a batting average that is far lower than what you get from such people as Doak, Hanse, C&C, etc, etc. The issue I have is whether the aforementioned people would have a higher batting average than TF if they had to crank out as many courses in the time manner that he has done. Or flip ir around the other way -- if TF only had to concentrate on a single design or say 3-4 over two years would his overall product be that much better than what we see now with what his firm produces.

That makes for an interesting discussion.

[Richard Choi]

Somehow Matt always finds a way to guide the discussion where only he is the qualified source for criticism...

As TD has said, you can play just one course and still admire/criticize someone's work. You don't need to play 25.

[Matt_Ward]

Richard:

Do I detect a degree of insecurity on your part ?

I'm far from any lone source -- I simply said that yes people can respect a given course but if you want to weigh the totality of what a person is capable in doing then one needs to see a sampling size -- it could be in the range of the number David K provided -- in order to make conclusions of one sort or the other. TF often gets tossed under the bus -- because of his efforts in changing the nature of classic courses.

The wrap TF also gets is the sheer volume of courses he produces and whether or not they are clearly differentiated in some meaningful way. I provided my thoughts on this and clearly my own homework has given me a sense of what the man is capable in doing -- and not doing. If you find my homework on TF is insufficient please let me know.

Like I said -- if TF lowered his overall number of courses would the product improve dramatically? Would others who design far less -- be able to maintain the bar they have met previosuly if forced to crank out numerous courses in a very compressed time frame? I simply pose the questions for others to answer. 

[George Pazin]

I simply pose the questions for others to answer. 

I'm not fallin' for that one...

My portfolio stands at 4. I really liked 2, 1 was okay, the 4th I didn't particularly care for. I wouldn't generalize any further other than to note I can't remember any of them as well as many other courses I've played once.

I will say, Mirasol was my favorite new addition to the PGA Tour - so of course they no longer play there.