.JPG)
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.