next »

[Press ReLease]

Fazio Featured At Pro-Pres., Golf & Green Chairman Event

Contact Martin Emeno
610-687-2340, ext. 27

(May 13, 2002) - Renowned golf course designer Tom Fazio, a native of Norristown who oversaw the recent changes to Augusta National Golf Club, will head a group of panelists discussing Restoration and Golf Course Architecture on Wednesday at North Hills Country Club as part of the Golf Association of Philadelphia's Pro-Pres., Golf & Green Chairman event.

Augusta National GC hosts the Masters every spring.

In addition to Fazio, panelists include Bradley Klein, renowned golf author and architectural consultant, and Wilson Greenwood, Jr., a member of Merion Golf Club's Greens Committee that is overseeing the recent bunker changes at the famed Ardmore course.

Ed Abrams, the producer/host of the television show GolfShots, will serve as the moderator.

No living designer has more credits on Golf Digest's list of America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses and Golfweek's collection of America's Best than Fazio.

Known for emphasizing the premise that golf courses should reflect the natural beauty of their environments, Fazio is the foremost designer of our time. Among his works are Steve Wynn's exclusive hideaway, Shadow Creek in Las Vegas, Nev., World Woods Golf Club (Pine Barrens Course) in Fla., and the Wade Hampton Golf Club in Cashiers, N.C. Locally, Fazio's lent his touch to Hartefeld National Golf Club in Avondale as well as the Centennial Nine at Philadelphia Country Club in Gladwyne.

Klein, a native of Queens, N.Y., is the author of Discovering Donald Ross, winner of the 2001 USGA International Book Award, and Rough Meditations. He's also the founding editor of Superintendent News and architecture editor of Golfweek.

Greenwood has been a board member at Merion Golf Club since 1995. In addition to the ongoing bunker and 1930 reconfiguration that is underway, his committee has overseen the regrassing of the green's on Merion's East Course in 1995, the irrigation system installations on the East Course in 1995-96 and the upgrading of the greens in 2000-01 on Merion's West Course.

The seminar begins at 9:30 a.m. and runs for approximately an hour and a half.

All media are welcome. Anyone interested in attending the event must contact Martin Emeno at the aforementioned number.

[RJ_Daley]

OK, I'll start the cynicism this morning...

How much real discussion can they engage in during an hour and a half, after the obligatory reading of the press releases as above for introductions, backslapping and self congradulations and adulations?  

What they really need is a good old fashion hotbox forum where the Faz is in the witness chair and a knowledgeble panel of 3 or so experts take turns interviewing him.  Sort of a "Meet the Press" format.  Maybe that format could produce some suitably indepth probing of his methods and motives regarding the infamous remodelling work.

[Huge "Puffy Wilson"]

What?  I wasn't invited to participate on the dais?  I could sing the praises of those bunkers all the live long day.

Minimally, I figured they'd at least let me rap a few tunes to warm up the crowd.

I feel like Ralph Nader.   :-/

[Tim Weiman]

Dick Daley:

Most golf course projects include things that are a matter of public record while other issues remain under consideration and are still private.

As for Merion, the big controversy is already a matter of public record, specifically, the aesthetics of the new bunkers.

Most likely people will make up their mind using their eyes not their ears.  That is to say, if you don't like the appearance of Merion's new bunkers, it is unlikely anything said at this seminar will change your mind.

Were I in the area, I'd be interested in attending, but not with the expectation of seeing something like the O'Reilly factor.

[Mark_Fine]

I will be there and try to let everyone know my take on the discussion.

[RJ_Daley]

Tim,

Indeed with all the discussion that has gone forth on this DG about the aethetics and propriety of the bunker work, I think we all know 'what' is at issue.  But, only an independent and knowledgeable panel of questioners would perhaps have a chance to ferret out the "why" of it all.  

[TEPaul]

The subject of the meeting will be "restoration" and with Bill Greenwood on the panel obviously the subject will touch on the Merion restoration program and maybe the subject of Merion's bunkers but I hardly expect the entire meeting to dwell on that--there are plenty of other things to talk about as well on the subject of restoration.

Brad Klein is in the area right now and is staying with me tonight and I just got faxed the questions Abrams will ask him.

There are some good questions on the whole process of restoration for Brad as well as the specific subject of "Firm and fast" and the subject of agronomy in it's ideal "maintenance ......" (not sure if the actual term will be used but I hope so).

Don't worry, I've seen Brad speak before--he's very good and doesn't beat around the bush and sugarcoat things---he makes his points so there's little room for misunderstanding.

He'll be ready and I'll let you know how it went on Thursday!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Press Release et. al.,

What a wonderful opportunity to learn about Merion and other projects from the horse's mouth.

What a great opportunity to listen and ask questions of the parties directly involved, the parties with all the facts.

Make the most of this opportunity.

[Huge "Puffy" Wilson]

Since I'll be on the west coast visiting "Puffy" Thomas to ride skateboards on the new 8th hole ramp, it might be interesting for someone to ask Tom Fazio his motivation for so charitably offering his architectural services "pro bono" to any Top 20 course.  

Mr. Patrick Mucci;

What questions about Fazio's restoration work do you think are so unclear that can be clarified with information "from the horse's mouth"?  What would you like to ask if you were in attendance?

[TEPaul]

"Puffy":

Pat wants Merion's "Mission Statement"!

Even if Merion never had a "Mission Statement" I think Pat's going to get one out of them somehow one of these days!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I've got a great idea! How about if a club did a restoration and then wrote a "Mission Statement"?

That way the restoration could almost be guaranteed to conform to the "Mission Statement" in every single detail.

[Huge "Puffy" Wilson]

Isn't that what happened?

[twentyone]

Hey, Puffy, if that guy doing all the pro-bono "restoration" work will only do it on top 20 ranked courses, might ones club better stand the test of time if it is ranked number 21-30

[TEPaul]

I don't know but I did hear that's the way they did it at Backward Indian Country and Golf Club in Vegas Las!

The process worked beautifully and in the end everyone was very happy and not a single mistake was made!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Puffy,

A zillion of them, especially in the context of the recreation work at PV and the restoration work at Merion.

I will go into great detail as soon as you forego anonymity and post under your real name.

TEPaul,

That would sure guarantee perfect results, wouldn't it.

[Huge "Puffy" Wilson]

Mr. Patrick Mucci,

This veil of anonymity not only gives me street credibility, it protects me from architectural no-good-deed-doers.

Think Spider-Man, bro.  How effective would he be if all the gangs knew he was really only little puny Peter Parker?

If I also promise to fight for return of the stymie, would you at least share with the group your most pressing question regarding Tom Fazio's vaunted restoration efforts?

Guess not...

so, in the spirit of good humor and no hard feelings, let me share a joke.

Did you hear the one about the club that was so lazy they thought about converting their bunkers to living room furniture?

They eventually decided not to, but had them upholstered anyway!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Puffy,

Your allegiance to the STYMIE has prevailed

As a general questioning theme,
I would ask what the respective club's goals were with each project, and how he went about fulfilling those goals, from a design and construction perspective, and what would he do differently if he was to undertake those projects today.

I'm sure I'd have innumerable follow up questions.

[Maxfli]

Huge?  Puffy?  Tommy N., I thought you retired.

[Huge "Puffy" Wilson]

Maxfli,

I know Tommy N., and in the inspirational words of Senator Lloyd Benson, I can honestly and emphatically tell you...."I'm NO Tommy N!"  

Mr. Patrick Mucci,

With the good Lord's grace, we will play together again soon, and at that time, on the first tee, I will turn to you and say, "Stymies, anyone?"

If nothing else, the bewildered onlookers among our playing partners and others on the course will be ultimately inspired by our example.  Every great movement, including old-school rap, starts at the grass-roots level.  

[Huge "Puffy" Wilson]

er..uh..."Senator Lloyd Bentsen"

My apologies.

Our poor, public, west Philly schools could only afford guest visits by fellows like that Quail guy from Indiana to instruct us in spelling.  

[Maxfli]

Ah, my bad.  It is just that you brought back fond memories of The Emperor.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Well, like a rusty old politician with the tenacity of a Strom Thurmond, I'm still here...Barely.

I have known about this event for some months, and if I had really wanted to make an ass out of myself, I guess I could have dressed up like a bus boy or waiter and crashed this so called love fest called, "Discussion of Restoration and Golf Course Architecture," which should actually be called, "Destruction Of Golf Course Architecture To The Point There Is No Sense In Trying To Restore It."

(I'm not naming any names or attacking anybody, just expressing my opinion)

Hopefully Joe Logan will do a write-up of the event.

[TEPaul]

It was pretty darn good although there's never enough time to cover the topics fully in only a ninety minute program.

The first question was "What's the differences between restoration and redesign?" and TomF went first and said that it was very hard to define that one and it was a matter of course by course and what various people involved at the courses wanted to do. Tom Fazio did say it's a situation where there is always criticism no matter what you do and he actually did say that his "redesign" of three holes at Inverness back in the 1970s he considered a mistake today.

He also said that after that he decided that restoration was probably not the thing for him or the direction he wanted to go in and that he felt architecture was ultimately a unique expression and that he thought it better to look ahead and not look back. He said he has done practically 200 courses in his career and after a certain number, perhaps 100, an architect should not continue doing holes that had been done before and should always strive to try to do something fresh and unique in the next project.

The quesitons were asked by moderator Ed Abrams and it would have been a logical question I suppose for someone in the audience to ask Tom why then his company is working on so many famous old classic courses doing restorations--but the Q&A period had not arrived so that question was never asked.

Much of what Tom said was very similar to what he wrote in his book and he kindly donated a very good number of his books to the GAP with the proceeds going to our J. Wood Platt Caddie Scholarship program!

Bill Greenwood referred back to the late 1980s and explained how Merion had lost their greens entirely in the late 1980s  immediately preceding the women's Amateur, the history of the superintendency they've had since then and the gradual movement from that period because of those problems to slowly improve the course and the recent move to return the course architecturally to 1930.

He explaining the Joe Dey USGA era of narrowing down fairways and basically taking the fairway bunkering out of play and now after 30 plus years of fairway narrowness that's one of the features that will be restored.

He talked a lot about the bunkers, the condition they had gotten into and that their sand and drainage had become a disaster, a constant maintenance headache. He did say that he realized and understood that there had been criticism concerning the bunker "surrounds" but that they expect them to improve when the new grass matures and gives them that older more rugged look again.

Brad Klein answered the "restoration/redesign" question by saying that completely pure restoration was probably somewhat unlikely sometimes but at the very least every classic course considering restoration should make every effort to understand the design thinking of the original architect of their course and at least to pay homage to either him or the priniciples upon which he designed the course.

Having said that Brad launched into the extreme importance of the ground game to these older courses and that in so many cases that has been lost. He stressed very strongly that drier turf is healthier turf and far more fun to play for every level of golfer, and how it's actually harder to play for the good player and far more enjoyable for the higher handicapper!

He also stressed strongly that trees have often been an abomination to these courses for many decades as a result of thoughtless tree planting that had tremendously hurt drier turf conditions as well as valid shot angles and such.

He spoke a bit about the problems in governance in clubs in the last five or so decades with revolving committees who have never taken the time to understand their courses and how to maintain them.

Basically Brad had the audience behind him from the gitgo when he mentioned in response to Abrams's original question to him to tell us about his experiences in architecture.

This is what Brad said:

"About the first thing I learned about golf architecture is that rich people are often real idiots!"

Enormous roar of laughter and he definitely had their attention after that! Again, there's never enough time but plenty of people from the audience at lunch said they'd really learned a lot--some valuable information for their classic courses and potential restorations!

[jim_lewis]

I suppose Brad is right that many rich people are idiots. I even know a few. However, in my experience poor people are even more likely to be idiots. In fact, most of the idiots I have met are not rich. Otherwise, I suppose the old saying would go like this: "If you're so smart, why aren't you poor?".

My favorite poem:

See the happy moron.
He doesn't give a damn.
I wish I were a moron.
My God! Perhaps I am.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

How many people were in attendance, and what questions were asked of Fazio and Greenwood ?

What did you ask of the panelists ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim Lewis,
I would surmise that the quote of Brad Klein's was in reference to the many cooks fiddling with the wonderful old courses that they play, many of which are classics and private. This fiddling does not originate from a board room in a refrigerator box.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

The program ran overtime so there was only time for a few questions and I wasn't able to ask mine which was:

"Tom, Ed Abrams introduced you as the having more courses on Golf Digest's top 100 list than any other living architect. I'm a real fan of Golf Digest's Top 100 list so I was wondering if you considered that the bunker contractor you've been working with recently on classic courses all over America, MacDonald & Co., is one of the top 100 living bunker contractors working on restoring classic courses today?"

Although I didn't get a chance to ask him on the panel I did run into him during lunch and asked him anyway. As always mentioned he is an extremely nice guy.

He thought about it a while but just gave me his card and told me to call him in a few weeks and he should probably have an answer for me.

So I thanked him and was on my way out when he said:

"Actually, yes, I would consider them one of the top 100 living bunker contractors working on classic courses today but only if they have a guy at any golf club supervising them off a comprehensive "Mission Statement" like that Pat Mucci fellow on that architectural website, Golfclubatlas, that you're on all the time."

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

His response doesn't surprise me  

[Mark_Fine]

Here was my take on the discussion.  First of all, Tom talked for 80% of it.  Would have liked to heard more from Brad but he was quite polite and struggled to get his two cents in as often as I would have liked to see.  

Regarding the definition of "restoration", Tom said the following:
1) Picking a "timeframe" is key.  How far back in time do you go when you elect to restore a golf course?  1930 was choosen as the date for Merion because it was an historic year and so much info./photos were available about the course.
2) The clubs intentions/aspirations are key.
3) The topic will always be controversial no matter what you do.
4) He doesn't believe in restoration!

Brad said:
1) To completely restore a classic course you'd have to take out the irrigation, remove all the trees, change out all the grasses,... it's just not practical.
2) The ground game is a key aspect of classic courses and design intent of the architect must be considered.  
3) The club has to think about the heritage and the identity that it wants and restoration is a great way to achieve that.  

Tom put in his plug for playability and noted that there are a lot of poor golfers out there.  He also said cart paths are his #1 problem as a designer and claimed roughly 1/3 of the 18,000 or so golf courses in the U.S. can't really be played (or wouldn't have been built) with out them.  

Brad got some good points in but I really wish he was given more time to express his views as I know people would have found what he had to say very interesting (I know that just from the discussions we had together before the session started).

The two questions I got to ask were, 1) How many modern architects develop "master plans" for their courses as Colt used to do, and 2) How would Tom feel if some of his courses were "improved" over time?  

Tom said he liked what Colt did and claimed he started doing master plans for his designs about 10 years ago.  Unfortunately no one else on the panel got to comment on this one as time was brief.  On the second question, I sensed some defensiveness on Tom's part but he claimed if someone thought they could improve on what he had designed to go do it (he didn't sound all that sincere, and there wasn't time to follow up on his response).  

Overall, a good session but I would have liked to have seen more interaction with the audience for questions and answers and more time for Brad to speak.
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

Tom Fazio doesn't believe in restoration?  Yet, he accepts jobs pro-bono that have "restoration" as their goal at our most wonderful, classic courses??

What kind of double-speak is that?  Is this 1984, because all of a sudden, language seems essentially meaningless.

Tom,

I'm glad to hear that the bunker surrounds at Merion will evolve over time.  That's great to hear.  Really...I can't wait.  I can almost hear it happening as we speak.  Any minute now and they'll be back.  Yep...just keep watching.  C'mon now, bunkers....you can do it...c'mon..

Sheesh...naive little me...I thought obfuscation and PR spin were the tools of those protecting national secrets in DC.  We're talking about golf course bunkers here.

If they are so GOOD, and if the work done is so wonderful and authentic, than why should the club's leadership be hoping for them to "evolve"?  Why weren't they done right in the first place?!?  

C'mon...we've all seen newly constructed bunkers at any number of course in recent years that look as though they've always been there and are perfect from the get-go.  Do the "white faces" of Merion deserve less?

It makes me wonder why they won't just admit that they didn't come off as planned, bite the bullet, and figure out some way to get it right, if that's even possible at this point. 

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I realize this Merion bunker subject has been going on for a long, long time, not only on here.

But a very important clarification should be made, particularly after today when Bill Greenwood spoke at length about Merion's long and ongoing restoration and particularly the bunkers and even the "surrounds".

What he said was not obfuscation or PR spin at all! The fact is that a lot of different people have a lot of different opinions about the bunkers, I'm sure, but by no means a majority of people think mistakes were made with them and by no means even near a majority of people feel about them like some of us on here do that they should have been preserved or possibly even that the surrounds, if they were done at all, should have been handworked more than they were.

If there are any issues with the Merion bunker project today it's far more that they are very hard to get in and out of than what they actually look like!

The question of what they look like and some adverse reaction to that was not avoided today either. Ed Abrams, the moderator, asked that very question of some reaction to what they looked like more than once, actually.

Both Tom Fazio and Bill Greenwood acknowledged that they are aware of some negative reaction of some to what they look like but that criticism is always going to be part of architecture and restoration architecture.

The fact is that a majority of Merion's member probably do not feel that mistakes were made. Some might but I really doubt anything remotely close to a majority does.

That doesn't mean you should feel any better than you do about them because of it, but nevertheless, the way the subject was dealt with today is obviously the truth of it.

Of course we could all get into speculating about how the Green committee or Merion's membership would feel today about their bunkers if Coore and Crenshaw had come in there and done them maybe with a lot more handworking.

That's something nobody will be able to know now, because that's not the way it went but even that does not mean that most people think mistakes were made.

So when you say you wonder when they will admit that they didn't come off as planned, I don't think that would be an accurate assessment from Merion's perspective.

[Ran Morrissett]

Was the tree removal on the 16th mentioned? From the one pic I've seen, that was a wonderful occurence and worthy of praise from all corners.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ran,

The tree removal on 16 is wonderful, as well as the tree removal between 11-12, behind 14, and along the 15th green.  

Those are all very positive changes, and I cited those changes here when they happened.

My remark about Merion's bunkering is based largely on aesthetic factors, yes, but also based on a comment on here by a knowledgeable source that the new bunkers were having structural problems.  

Tom,  thanks for sharing the report from the session, as well as letting us know that most of the members of Merion like the new bunkers.  I just have a difficult time accepting them as a "restoration" to anything I've ever seen in historical photos.  That's the spin I'm most concerned about, because it essentially argues that clearly modern, machine-stylized, and constructed bunkers are indicative and representative of some kind of return to the classic age of design.

    

[A_Clay_Man]

TePaul- How did he know that your on this site "all the time"?

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

On your last sentence in your last post, I do hear you. I think that's exactly what's being argued and was yesterday too. It's not really right to say that the club should realize that they made a mistake though! That's just not the way it is--that's just not the way they see it and are failing to admit!

Don't you see what's going on here not just with your impression of Merion, but Riviera and maybe some of the other courses that are undergoing restorations with Fazio? None of these people are attempting to cover up what they secretly think are mistakes or a poor product.

Fazio does not even attempt to act as sympathetic towards classic architecture and what you might think that means, as say Brad Klein does or did yesterday. Fazio is not dissembling or saying one thing when he means another. Fazio appears to mean exactly what he's saying--there is no spin!

Think about what Fazio claims he bases most of his business on, even his restoration projects. Fazio claims and always has that his first priority is to his client and what the client might want! He's never denied that--ever!

Just think about that a minute. Tom Fazio is dedicated to doing what a client might want him to do even in famous classic course restorations. Some of his clients might know a lot, might have done tons of research too, but do they know as much about architecture as Tom Fazio does? How could they possibly?

Tom Fazio has to realize that but he does what they want anyway. That's probably part of why he says that he can't make much of a distinction between "restoration" and "redesign".

Other architects like Hanse, Doak, Prichard, Forse, or Coore and Crenshaw, particularly on restoration projects, have got to figure the client is obviously hiring them to tell them what they know and think which has got to be more about architecture than the client knows!

If the client asks a company like Coore and Crenshaw to do something that they don't think is the correct thing to do architecturally in almost all cases they won't work with that client! It's as simple as that!

But Tom Fazio appears to be able to work with any client--because to him it appears the client comes before even the architecture--that's what he says and that's what he's written anyway.

Tom Fazio said yesterday that the reason he took on restoration architecture way back when was because that's the only business they could get back then. He explained in good length that in 1974 the golf architectural market completely tanked and restoration was the only work they could get!

So you can see where this can go. C&C have got to know that they know more about architecture than probably any client and if they can't get that client to accept their advice and work with their ideas they just aren't going to sign a contract! This is so obvious, because it happens all the time.

But I don't think that's true of Tom Fazio and he doesn't appear to deny it at all. He does deal with some very rich clients sometimes and he prides himself on producing better than anyone that client's vision, whatever that might be architecturally.

But does that allow any of us to understand what Tom Fazio's true values are architecturally? Yes, it does--and that's to give a client what he wants! If that happens to be what some of us think is great architecture than apparently he can do that, and if it's what some of us think is NOT great architecture he can do that too--and he apparently does not mind admitting that at all!

Architects that don't mind giving a client what the client thinks he wants although they know full well that the client can't possibly know what they know is an inherently dangerous combination on classic courses.

Clients that think they know exactly what to do and how to do it and that if they just tell any architect what they want him to do that it's going to automaticlly happen is also dangerous!

But when that happens does it mean that the client or an architect like Tom Fazio thinks a mistake was made in the product? I don't believe it does.

If C&C did Merion's bunkers would it have looked better to you Mike Cirba? Probably. Would it have looked better to the members of Merion and the committee? Probably. Did any of them understand that before the bunkers project began? Probably not. Do they understand that now? Probably not since they can't visualize what C&C's bunkers would look like.

So do they think a mistake was made? I'd doubt it! We should let this subject go completely. Golfclubatlas has said about all they can and now the club and the architect have too--there's just nothing else new or unknown left to say.