Tom Anderson,
I heartily agree with you. Tom Fazio is a gifted golf course architect. That is indisputable, and I doubt neither his work ethic or talent.
I have played a number of his original courses that I've enjoyed, and as you say, some are truly strategically interesting and challenging. Particularly those courses that he built in the late 80s, and early 90s, when he was limiting his work to a maximum of six projects per year seemed to exhibit some excellent work.
At his best, Tom Fazio is able to mix holes that both delight the senses while remaining thought provoking. However, I would argue two major points that I believe is at the heart of what others here are voicing.
1) The Fazio organization, by virtue of its success, has spread itself woefully thin in recent years, to the point where the true gems are becoming more and more difficult to discover amidst all the man-made, beautiful fluff. The courses where Mr. Fazio actually puts in the highest degree of personal effort, such as Victoria National, seem to garner the highest praise and recognition. However, that does not hide the fact that his "batting average" seems to have fallen precipitously, and many here find the majority of his current work to be without true strategic interest, with the focus instead on creating a pretty, but ultimately vapid picture. Case in point to me is his work at Pine Hill, where a fabulous site yielded very little despite a lot of money and hype thrown around.
2) Despite being spread so thin on new projects, Mr. Fazio has offered his work pro bono to classic clubs. If there is a reason for this beyond vanity and the wish to "make his mark" on those beloved and historic courses, then I wish you would enlighten us. The work done has caused such an uproar simply because many find it wildly inconsistent with the architectural intent of those courses, and believe that Mr. Fazio exhibits almost a willing disregard (i.e. his oft repeated statements that he is not the least bit influenced by classic architects, who he seems to hold in some disdain) in keeping his work congrous with the decades of history that came before him.
If we are so touchy about changing a blade of grass on these wonderful courses, as you claim, then why do we also so often herald the restoration work of so many other architects, who let ego take a back seat to doing what is best for the golf course? Are we simply biased? Are we jealous of Tom Fazio's success? Why wouldn't we wish that he made our greatest courses even better, and wish him the best with each of those opportunities?
No, instead, I believe it's simply a case of his "restoration" work sticking out like a sore thumb in many cases, under the simplistic rationales of "progress", "defending against technology", and "the wishes of the owner". Look, Tom...Mr. Fazio has enough success and money and reputation to not have to kowtow to anyone or any of those reasons. The fact he does so makes many here scratch their head in bewilderment as to his motivations and the fact that many of those important projects get nary a site visit from Tom (his first and even second level associates are instead doing the actual design and construction work) makes us wonder about his commitment to doing the right thing for those courses.
No, I haven't designed a detailed drainage plan, but I, like others here, are paying consumers of his product. We have a right to say when we are given pablum and told it's champagne.