Tom Fazio interview with Golf Digest

[Richard Choi]

I hate using the same metaphor, but let me indulge for a sec.

I am a great admirer of Andrea Del Sarto, a Renaissance painter from Florence who lived in 16th century. I have studied practically every known work through pictures, read many books and essays about him, and have seen many dozens of works by him in person.

Now, he is not a very well known artist and most people probably have never seen one of his works. But you can get the essence of what he is about just by looking at a single painting (this would be a good one: http://www.wga.hu/preview/a/andrea/sarto/1/harpies.jpg). And that is true for most masters, you can get the essence of DaVinci just by viewing Mona Lisa, or Picasso by Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.

I would argue that the same applies for golf course architects. You can get the essence of Ross by Pinehurst #2, C&C by Sand Hills, and Doak by Pacific Dunes. You can just play these single courses and appreciate the genius behind it even without playing any other courses by them.

The fact that you are arguing that you need to experience at least 25 courses by Tom Fazio to truly appreciate how good he is says that he is really not that good at all. Your counterpoint is actually more damning to Tom Fazio than any argument that his detractors have made so far.

The greatness is easily recognizable. If not, it is really is not that great.

[George Pazin]

I hate using the same metaphor, but let me indulge for a sec.

I am a great admirer of Andrea Del Sarto, a Renaissance painter from Florence who lived in 16th century. I have studied practically every known work through pictures, read many books and essays about him, and have seen many dozens of works by him in person.

Now, he is not a very well known artist and most people probably have never seen one of his works. But you can get the essence of what he is about just by looking at a single painting (this would be a good one: http://www.wga.hu/preview/a/andrea/sarto/1/harpies.jpg). And that is true for most masters, you can get the essence of DaVinci just by viewing Mona Lisa, or Picasso by Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.

I would argue that the same applies for golf course architects. You can get the essence of Ross by Pinehurst #2, C&C by Sand Hills, and Doak by Pacific Dunes. You can just play these single courses and appreciate the genius behind it even without playing any other courses by them.

The fact that you are arguing that you need to experience at least 25 courses by Tom Fazio to truly appreciate how good he is says that he is really not that good at all. Your counterpoint is actually more damning to Tom Fazio than any argument that his detractors have made so far.

The greatness is easily recognizable. If not, it is really is not that great.

An excellent post, another that would make a good thread in and of itself.

[David Kelly]

But Matt the majority of those TF courses that I have played did not need to have been seen in order to garner an opinion on Fazio.  Those Florida courses are virtually all the same with the exception of a few unque sites.

[Lou_Duran]

Richard,

I am not sure if you were addressing the post that so impressed George Pazin to me, but regardless, I think it is mostly nonsense.  You pick the best courses of the three architects to make your argument.  I've only played three of Doak's courses, but if Stone Eagle was the only I've seen, I wouldn't think nearly as high of his ability as I do.  Ditto for C & C if East Hampton or Barton Creek were the only courses that were seen.  As to your Ross example, do you know the history of #2?  What we see today is a work in progress over many decades involving numerous archies.  Like Dye at Crooked Stick, reportedly Ross couldn't keep his hands off #2.  And would you want to compare Ross' entire portfolio to Fazio's?  I've recently played Dunedin, a course that is fun and inexpensive to play, but one that couldn't scratch the worst course I've played in Fazio's portfolio.

As to your comparison to the fine arts masters, do you think they had no duds?  Do you think that perhaps their culls may not  have survived?  Doak has already lost two or three courses.  Maybe over time Fazio's lesser work will be taken over by some other use.  Maybe a Richard Choi in 2300 will say that if one played Escondido but once he would know that Fazio was a genius.

My main point to you was that it is dangerous to form strong opinions based on a minimal examination of the facts.  And trying to make associations or analogies to other areas, particularly when done in such an orange to apples manner, further compounds the error.  Fortunately, our opinions don't count for much so there is little harm done.

On another matter, I could use a newer version of Windows.  My 2002 XP is not very good, to be kind.  I keep getting error messages when a site's connection is lost, often taking five or more minutes to X out.  Any deals for current MSFT shareholders and Windows users?  Thank God I didn't form my opinion of Gates and Ballmer based on the performance of a single product- Windows XP! 

David K,

I understand that Gil Hanse has a course very similar to RC in Long Island.  Should I skip it and base my opinion solely on his work in Moorpark and Ojai?

Florida is an extremely hard state to make a strong statement, particularly along the coast.  I think Pine Barrens is rather unique course, and I thought that Camp Creek was very good.  Other than how a site and climate affects the design, I don't expect the variety in an architect's portfolio as much as on the individual courses (18 holes presenting different challenges, shots, levels of difficulty).   For a variety of course styles we have the work of different architects, some which do a much better job than others in differentiating themselves.

[Sean_A]

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

Scott

I know its not always easy to do so, but I think you have a much better chance of being on solid ground if you talk about courses rather than architects.  There are so many variables that we don't know about which actually effect designs.

Ciao

[David Kelly]

David K,
I understand that Gil Hanse has a course very similar to RC in Long Island.  Should I skip it and base my opinion solely on his work in Moorpark and Ojai?

No, apparently you have to see every single one of his courses without exception and only then will you be able to have a basis for your opinion. Unless your opinion is positive of course and if that is the case you only have to see whatever amount you want to see in order to sing his praises.

So 25+ courses played does not entitle me to say I don't have a high opinion of Fazio's work.  But if I liked him and had only played 2 or 3 of his courses then it would be no problem.

[Richard Choi]

Lou, it was addressed really to Matt, but I would be happy to respond to you.

While it is true that you should judge an artist by their best work, you can gleam quite a bit just from their lesser works. For example, I really like John Harbottle. There is a local course nearby named Willows Run where he added 18 new holes to an existing set of 18. While it is certainly not among his best work (Olympic Course at Gold Mountain, for example) due to very flat topography and lack of space, the new 18'ss are so much superior to the old 18's that you can truly appreciate what a good/great architect can do above and beyond what mediocre architects can do.

But my real point is that you should not need to sample at least 25 courses by Tom Fazio to appreciate his skill. You should be able to sample 1 or 2 from his best efforts and gleam much of what you need.

P.S. Lou, I will be happy to be your MS Support personnel. Just IM me your problems

[Sean Leary]

But Matt the majority of those TF courses that I have played did not need to have been seen in order to garner an opinion on Fazio.  Those Florida courses are virtually all the same with the exception of a few unque sites.

DK,

Are his desert courses as similar as the Florida ones? Just wondering if given similar property, he does similar designs as he has to create it.

I wonder if his mountain courses do the same thing, whether he has a template that works and he sticks too that.

I asked earlier, but I would like to see an example of his template holes that he uses over and over. I have played probably 12-15 of his courses and can't remember any template holes.

[Lou_Duran]

Scott

I know its not always easy to do so, but I think you have a much better chance of being on solid ground if you talk about courses rather than architects.  There are so many variables that we don't know about which actually effect designs.

Ciao

Right on.  A point I've tried to make without much success.

But my real point is that you should not need to sample at least 25 courses by Tom Fazio to appreciate his skill. You should be able to sample 1 or 2 from his best efforts and gleam much of what you need.

P.S. Lou, I will be happy to be your MS Support personnel. Just IM me your problems

We are getting much closer.  If you're in Dallas and don't mind forking over the green fee, I may be able to get one of my acquaintances to host you at Dallas National.  If you then still dismiss Fazio as less than an exceptional architect, so be it.

As to my MS Support needs, I am afraid it might take someone nearly around the clock.  If you think my politics are out of whack, I am worse with computers.

David K,
I understand that Gil Hanse has a course very similar to RC in Long Island.  Should I skip it and base my opinion solely on his work in Moorpark and Ojai?

No, apparently you have to see every single one of his courses without exception and only then will you be able to have a basis for your opinion. Unless your opinion is positive of course and if that is the case you only have to see whatever amount you want to see in order to sing his praises.

So 25+ courses played does not entitle me to say I don't have a high opinion of Fazio's work.  But if I liked him and had only played 2 or 3 of his courses then it would be no problem.

You finally got it David.  While we have similar levels of experience with Fazio's work, there is only a five course overlap (Preserve, two at WW, Flint Hills, and Glen).  I don't consider these to be in the top tier of his work.  And of course you are entitled to your opinion, though it may not be a good one, in my opinion.   

[David Kelly]

You finally got it David.  While we have similar levels of experience with Fazio's work, there is only a five course overlap (Preserve, two at WW, Flint Hills, and Glen).  I don't consider these to be in the top tier of his work.  And of course you are entitled to your opinion, though it may not be a good one, in my opinion.   

But you have no problem offering a positive opinion on Tom Doak's work despite only playing 3 of his courses and not thinking highly of one of the three.  Interesting.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

This should be updated:

http://golfarchitects.lib.msu.edu/faziot/index.html

I like his work for the most part. I've played the following: Galloway, Pine Hill, Hartfeld, Emerald Dunes, Grayhawk Raptor, Mirabel,Osprey Point, White Columns, The Frog and Belfair West.



The only negative that I can see in his body of work is that he has done very few public courses or munis. His daily fee and/or resort courses are not low cost except for his new course in El Paso- Butterfield Trail. Once he started his run of big budget work, he didn't look back.Even JN did a gratis design for his home town muni- North Palm Beach CC.

[Matt_Ward]

Steve:

You make a good point about the bulk of where you find TF's work -- although I will mention his success with a layout in Woodbury, NY called Oyster Bay -- built on a very cramped former estate and not far from BB -- the layout is a testament to a fine routing that squeezes everything into a tight package. I would not rate it as great course but it clearly demonstrates that TF has done such taxpayer-owned courses. No doubt it's likely he has opted away from them because of the time consuming process for approvals and various public comment dynamics which can drag on and on and on.

Richard C:

Here's what you said, "I would argue that the same applies for golf course architects. You can get the essence of Ross by Pinehurst #2, C&C by Sand Hills, and Doak by Pacific Dunes. You can just play these single courses and appreciate the genius behind it even without playing any other courses by them."

Really ?

Under your thinking -- I guess I can determine the "essence" of a baseball player if he hits a home run in his first at bat and then just presume that from a one-time plate appearance he's on the same path to greatness as a Babe Ruth. OK -- sure.

A person needs to have a reflective sample size because it can provide a genuine road map that outlines whether such a person is more of a fluke or has the goods to deliver at a high level -- a one time plate appearance can demonstrate -- using your word of "genius" or that the person really was just a fluke. You have people who make the case that TF should be thrown under the bus because they have played a very small smattering of his layouts and from that can extrapolate whether he can really hit the high notes of greatness For anyone to make such a broad brush statement of greatness or lack thereof strains credibility.
 
I pointed out that seeing a person's broader reaches through various examples can illustrate a number of points. I have said from the TF courses I have played -- that roughly 20-25% of that total is quite good -- by definition that would mean worthy of a repeat play if in the area. From that there are about 7-8 courses that I have played that bear his signature that are truly outstanding and worthy of national acclaim. No doubt TF's overall batting average is going to be less than others (e.g. Doak, C&C, Hanse, et al) who undertake far fewer projects for a host of reasons (not getting various assignments, preference to handle less work from a quality control perspective, etc, etc).

I also said it would be interesting to see if those who take on limited assignments could maintain the high level of execution they achieve now if forced to handle a myriad of projects scattered in various locales. Ditto the flipside if TF were to reduce his massive plate of course designs and simply harness his talents to a more limited number. Be curious to see if the results -- from either direction -- would be different than what many opine on now.

David Kelly:

You can have whatever opinion you want of TF. The issue is how such an opinion is formed. Clearly, to form an opinion it would be good to see what specific courses you have played and from those have you spell out which ones you found to be noteworthy -- if any at all. You've done that and I appreciate the desire you have shown to play a wide range of TF courses in different parts of the USA. It gives me a better sense than just playing one or two layouts -- which could easily have been dog tracks or the flip side been something more noteworthy.

I respect the fact that you have gone beyond surface level analysis -- defined by playing a very small token of his courses.

If you care to notice my assessment of TF is that he has done some outstanding work but the sheer array of courses he engages often dilutes not only his overall standing but lends itself to people seeing so many of his designs as a cut'n paste version of others. I would argue the point that when fully engaged in key projects Fazio is well suited to deliver the goods in a big time way -- the "brand" Fazio, however, often means his "brand name" is applied to a broader array of layouts in which he is more involved in spirit than actual hands-on involvement. Come to think of it -- Donald Ross followed a somewhat similar path for many of his designs.   

[Garland Bayley]

...
Richard C:

Here's what you said, "I would argue that the same applies for golf course architects. You can get the essence of Ross by Pinehurst #2, C&C by Sand Hills, and Doak by Pacific Dunes. You can just play these single courses and appreciate the genius behind it even without playing any other courses by them."

Really ?

Under your thinking -- I guess I can determine the "essence" of a baseball player if he hits a home run in his first at bat and then just presume that from a one-time plate appearance he's on the same path to greatness as a Babe Ruth. OK -- sure.

...

Matt,

If you want to be taken seriously, you should put forth meaningful arguments. You should be ashamed of that bit of work above.

[David Kelly]

If you care to notice my assessment of TF is that he has done some outstanding work but the sheer array of courses he engages often dilutes not only his overall standing but lends itself to people seeing so many of his designs as a cut'n paste version of others. I would argue the point that when fully engaged in key projects Fazio is well suited to deliver the goods in a big time way -- the "brand" Fazio, however, often means his "brand name" is applied to a broader array of layouts in which he is more involved in spirit than actual hands-on involvement. Come to think of it -- Donald Ross followed a somewhat similar path for many of his designs.   

Although I would say that he hasn't done as much outstanding work as he should have given his budgets and sites I do agree with most of what you say above  although even at his best I sometimes have trouble with certain aspects of his work such as the contouring of greens and the way the green sites relate to the land around them.

[Richard Choi]

Matt, if you want to stay with the sports analogy...

You have stated:

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.

Do seriously believe that a guy who is batting .200 is worthy of admiration??? That is WAAAAAAY below even the Mendoza line! Seriously, you are not doing Tom Fazio any favors around here.

Lou, I will be happy to try out any Fazio course that people recommend. If it is public, I am going to make my best effort to visit it whenever I am near.

I do want to make it clear that I am NOT one who thinks Tom Fazio is a poser. I think he is a very good architect, great even. I just don't think he is as good as some other architects I admire.

[David Kelly]

Are his desert courses as similar as the Florida ones? Just wondering if given similar property, he does similar designs as he has to create it.

I wonder if his mountain courses do the same thing, whether he has a template that works and he sticks too that.

The best work that I saw of his in Florida was very closely related to the quality of the site.  Black Diamond Quarry and WW Pine Barrens are very unusual sites for Florida and to me they were easily the best courses of his that I have played in that state.

I have played only 5 or 6 of his desert courses and they didn't do much for me with the exception of Estancia.  I do think the two Primm courses would be very much at home in Florida though.

But I have 40 or 50 more Fazio courses to go before I really know what I am talking about.

[Matt_Ward]

Just a small correction for your ending comment, "But I have 40 or 50 more Fazio courses to go before I really know what I am talking about."

Richard:

You missed my point -- allow me to try again.

TF has done outstanding work -- you might or might not have seen or played a number of them -- ditto others who take the quick and erroneous spot analysis approach when they think he just mails in the same version time after time. I said I have played many of his formulaic efforts but there are times when he has delivered the goods in a big time way. His batting average could be better -- but that's because of a business method he has followed to capture the $$ and contacts he has made.

Your comment is that you can tell greatness by simply playing / looking at one key course. I don't see how you can do that. How does one know it wasn't a fluke? Should I believe that someone who wins a major championship one time is the equivalent of a Hogan, Watson or Nicklaus?

A meaningful sample size spreads the story out -- they allow me to see if a person can adapt to different sites, to different budgets -- to different dynamics of all types.

Richard, you are free to admire other architects beyond TF. I never said you said he was a "poser." My point, which you failed to grasp, take an architect who has done outstanding work but with far fewer projects so that he can maintain direct quality control were to change to a workload that multiplies his portfolio a number of times over -- would the same outcomes be present? I doubt it. Likely, what TF does now would be the same for them. You can see that with what Donald Ross was doing years ago. I'd be curious to see if TF did less courses would his overall final products be more consistently higher than so many are now. In my mind, I believe I think he would certainly provide a higher success ratio but he has decided to forego that style for a more higher profile "brand" approach. Among the more noted late 20th century architects this model was also followed by RTJ. His batting average for overall superlative layouts was also smaller.

In regards to public courses TF has designed -- I would recommend Oyster Bay on Long Island should you ever venture this far east. Well done for the budget, land involved and the final routing plan. If I spend some time looking over the portfolio of TF courses I have played it's likely I can name a few other public layouts of note. I also thought his original efforts with Wild Dunes, when it first opened, was also really good stuff. Unfortunately, a hurricane decided to alter matters -- ditto the clustering of housing that came later also hurt what he did there.

David:

Keep this in mind -- you make a comment about his budget size determining whether or not he should have had more really outstanding courses. I would argue the point that budget size is only one element in the total equation. Spreading oneself very thin to capture the dollars available is more likely the culprit here. Like I said -- flip it around -- would those who do less work per year be able to hit the home runs they design if there total work output was tripled or quadrupled? Would TF be better if he took on less work and therefore devoted the kind of time and energy he has been able to do with certain specific projects.

When you say, "... even at his best I sometimes have trouble with certain aspects of his work such as the contouring of greens and the way the green sites relate to the land around them."

The above comment can only be stated from the "best" courses YOU (my emphasis) have played. I would dare say if you played a few others of his --Karsten Creek, Glenwild, Dallas National, to name just three -- you would likely see another side of his work which is far beyond the limited dimensions you mention in terms of his contouring of greens and green sites.

The main issue with TF for me is that his "brand" name has meant a race to develop more and more courses and often with that rush to open there is less and less focus on the sheer details that really bring to true greatness to the forefront. He has done it in a number of instances - which his toughest critics fail to notice -- but at the same time -- he has failed to do so in a fairly consistent manner -- as many of his proponents fail to recognize as well.

Just a small correction for your ending comment, "But I have 40 or 50 more Fazio courses to go before I really know what I am talking about."

Never said you needed to play a specific number but to be open to the possibility that others have seen clear examples to demonstrate the man is capable at times in delivering notable and outstanding designs.

[Richard Choi]

It is you who still don't get it.

Just look at Mona Lisa. If you cannot grasp how great of an artist DaVinci is with that single painting, you will never be able to get it even if you looked at hundred others.

It is simply a fallacy that you must sample wide variety to truly grasp it. It is just not necessary and it is nothing more than a red herring - which seems to be a very popular tactic with you.

Here are some typical threads where you are involved:

Joe Schmo: I like(hate) golf course X
Matt Ward: You don't know what you are talking about, you need to play that course at least 10 times like I have, before you can say that.

Joe Schmo: I like(hate) architect X
Matt Ward: You don't know what you are talking about, you need to play at least 25 courses (I have played 75 courses, by the way), by that architect before you can say that.

Joe Schmo: I like(hate) golf course X, and I have played it 20 times
Matt Ward: To REALLY appreciate that course, you need to play it 50 times like I have, before you can say that.

I get that you have played a lot of courses all over the world many times over. But just because someone else has not played as many courses as many times as you have does not mean that their point of view is invalid or any less worthy than yours.

Thank goodness you have not designed a course, otherwise you would be arguing that only someone who has designed a course can truly critique another architect.

[Matt_Ward]

Richard:

One time success stories doesn't mean a hall-of-fame player / architect, golfer, etc, etc, etc.

How bout we talk reality -- you think every architect is a DaVinci? Hello - anybody home? I always love when people gravitate to the extremes and use that as the base line for their main point.

It is no "red-herring" -- it's called doing one's homework. If you can't hack the fact that others have done their homework then you don't know the meaning of research.

I opined that far too many people have tossed the guy under the bus because they play 4-5 of his courses and likely those 4-5 weren't very good so therefore they conclude with the broad brush stroke that TF is not capable in bringing forward a quality design.

I've outlined how TF has made it a point to "brand" himself in the manner that Donald Ross did -- and from a modern standpoint with the likes of RTJ. Not every Ross course was a gem -- or remotely close to Pinehurst #2 and a few of his other signature gems. Plenty of them have since been made into mall parking lots. RTJ also spread his name but the sum total of his designs were limited to a handful of really outstanding designs. Clearly, when TF made a business decision to crank out more and more courses the quality control dynamic becomes an issue. There are clear examples of that and I have mentioned a few -- so have others on this thread.

I also pointed out which you seemed to either ignore or failed to comprehend that TF has made a conscious decision to design a slew of courses and often times that can result in plenty of them being a carbon copy of others. I have admitted that -- but I have also played a fair share of TF courses worthy of repeat play and from within that grouping a number of courses that are of high national caliber.

Richard, what you fail to get -- is that the point of an architector's standing rests not upon one course -- but upon the sum total of what he has done. You state a elementary point when you say a person can have an opinion of a given course. Geeze, no kidding. The issue is to see what overall skills an architect can demonstrate when one looks at a wider variety of their works. One time wonders -- are no less than the batter who comes up one time and hits a home run. Guess what? That doesn't make him a Babe Ruth in baseball.

Doing one's homework matters -- that's why I salute what Doak did with "Confidential Guide" because he put in the time / hours to personally see the collective nature of what designers have done with their respective designs. To really examine and see if patterns -- good, bad or so-so, are indeed present.

People can have opinions on ANYTHING. The issue is how much homework has been done to provide a more complete and accurate portrayal of what they are capable in doing.

It's a combination of two things -- seeing and playing a broad spectrum of courses and then applying the necessary analysis to compare / contrast such works -- especially when held against the top tier competition. The interesting thing about TF -- as I mentioned previously -- would be to see how his top tier competitors would fare -- if they had his client list for mass production courses. Would they really be able to produce a continual pattern of superstar courses if the workload prevented them from applying time and effort just to one or two courses in a year period? Clearly, it would be no less interesting to see how TF would far if he worked on 2-3 courses per year and therefore could be involved much more closely in what happens.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

Speaking only for myself, I don't think if I had Tom Fazio's workload, that we could do as good a job on each and every project as we do.

I don't think the quality would go down dramatically.  I've got a lot of talented people working with me [and more waiting in the wings], and we have done some of our best work when we've been the busiest -- for example, we built Sebonack, Ballyneal and Stone Eagle all at the same time.  Yet on all those jobs we were able to put 3-4 very talented guys on site at the same time, which is the key to building a lot of cool stuff.  If I spread them out over ten projects at a time, the quality level would suffer.

Which is why I don't do that and I don't intend to start.

Does that make me a better or worse designer than Tom Fazio?  Most voting for me do so because they like my priorities better; if they vote for Fazio based on his commercial success, then they like HIS priorities better.  In truth, we both rely a lot on the people who work for us, and it's not possible for you to separate out what we do from what they do, so I don't know how you would make a good comparison.

David K:  An architect's highest-ranked courses are nearly always on the best sites he's had to work with, with rare exceptions (see Ross - Pinehurst).

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Matt:

Speaking only for myself, I don't think if I had Tom Fazio's workload, that we could do as good a job on each and every project as we do.

I don't think the quality would go down dramatically.  I've got a lot of talented people working with me [and more waiting in the wings], and we have done some of our best work when we've been the busiest -- for example, we built Sebonack, Ballyneal and Stone Eagle all at the same time.  Yet on all those jobs we were able to put 3-4 very talented guys on site at the same time, which is the key to building a lot of cool stuff.  If I spread them out over ten projects at a time, the quality level would suffer.

Which is why I don't do that and I don't intend to start.

Does that make me a better or worse designer than Tom Fazio?  Most voting for me do so because they like my priorities better; if they vote for Fazio based on his commercial success, then they like HIS priorities better.  In truth, we both rely a lot on the people who work for us, and it's not possible for you to separate out what we do from what they do, so I don't know how you would make a good comparison.

David K:  An architect's highest-ranked courses are nearly always on the best sites he's had to work with, with rare exceptions (see Ross - Pinehurst).

Riviera and Thomas would be another.  In fact it might be a good topic for discussion.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

To address your comments -- no doubt people make decisions regarding how they wish to organize and handle their business. What works for one person -- may not work for others. At the same time -- there's no way in knowing for certain -- if TF reduced his load dramatically -- would the final result be better overall designs on a consistent basis? I don't know that answer but clearly from the courses he has spent a good deal of time with it appears the qualities of such courses is a good bit better than the generic "brand" TF layout.

Tom, let me point out that the idea that those who like what TF does are not basing that upon his "commercial success" -- but because it's likely they really enjoyed some / all of his designs. 

I mentioned my example for discussion purposes. Look if someone is really concentrating on one course then it's a better bet he will likely be able to provide a slew of hours/days/months, even years -- to perfecting what is there. TF has made a clear decision to brand himself with a range of people on his staff and they have, over the last 25 years, pumped out an incredible array of courses - not all stellar as I mentioned and I have tried to personally see / play what I think is a representative sample.

I do concur with the general feeling that far too many TF courses seem to follow a pre-set formula with plenty of the eye-candy elements that provide a "wow" factor for many golfers. Clearly, the commercial side has reaped huge benefits -- will the real design elements stand for something in say 40-50 years from now -- that is the question -- as it is for all architects.

No doubt TF's batting average is not as high as others -- but workload decisions do impact final course designs when one is trying to juggle a multitude of different projects is never easy. Other, like yourself, follow a different path and clearly it works for you. You candidly admitted that if you had ten projects at the same time going on the final result would show a lessening in overall quality. Please realize I don't give TF passes because he chooses to follow such a business development process. But I think it's a gross overstatement for people to trash the guy and think he's really not providing anything of quality and that nearly everything he does is really from the same tired blueprint over and over again. From the ones I have played there are a number of high caliber designs I see as being worthy of national attention but as I said previously it would be very easy for people to see a number of TF designs as being rather similar in terms of scope and overall style. That feeling likely would happen with the playing of certain courses and the inability to have played others.

[David Kelly]

David K:  An architect's highest-ranked courses are nearly always on the best sites he's had to work with, with rare exceptions (see Ross - Pinehurst).

True, although I know of a couple of second generation architects that have botched a few great sites in their day.

But you are right, Fazio had a couple of extremely unique sites in WW Pine Barrens and Black Diamond Quarry and he came through with very good courses. 

[Jim Nugent]

But you are right, Fazio had a couple of extremely unique sites in WW Pine Barrens and Black Diamond Quarry and he came through with very good courses. 

How does Fazio do on the other side of that coin:  great sites, not-great courses?