[Justin Wilson]

David Wigler

Very well stated.

I have not played Flint Hills but did see the course during the Womens Am and it didn't look articularly impressive or interesting. Why is it a brilliant piece of work?

[Mike_Cirba]

David Wigler,

Extremely well-stated, and I also wish that Tom Fazio would focus on creating new, original courses.  I am mystified why he would choose to do otherwise, and almost have to believe the fact that his best courses seem to have a pattern of debuting high in the rankings and then slipping has something to do with it.

There is no doubt in my mind that he believes that his courses are superior to almost anything that came before, and I believe he is somewhat frustrated that the major publication rankings don't concur.  I'm just speculating here, but could part of it have to do with the fact that he's developed almost a love/hate relationship with the classic courses, which have retained their lofty status despite his best competitive efforts to dethrone them?  

Of course, I'm not suggesting in the least that he's out to somehow degrade them.  In fact, much the opposite.

I believe that he truly feels he can improve them with his modern design style, and hopes that by doing so, he'll be recognized to be at least an equal with their creators.

Why else would he do this for free?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Wigler,

I think the work done to transform barren desert to a gorgeous golf course at Shadow Creek is spectacular, but,
I don't know that it automatically qualifies it to be in the top twenty, that's still open to debate.

[David Wigler]

Patrick,

Have you played Shadow Creek?  If yes, do you disagree that it belongs in any top 20 ever created?  I hope you answer yes and yes.  I have yet to meet anyone who has actually played Shadow and disagrees with my assessment of it.  It is an architectural marvel, a fantastic routing, a great test of golf, an immeasurably beautiful work of art and IMO the most influential course built since 1970.  It expanded the possibilities of what can be done on inferior land and created the "If you will spend the money, they can build the golf course" mentality.

Justin,

Flint Hills National defines greatness on several fronts (Before I continue, I did not see the Women's Am, so I do not know how the course was set up or played).  The routing is one of the best I have seen Fazio do.  He skillfully works you through the wetlands and environmentally situated areas on the course and still ends up with a course with perfect flow that can be easily walked (Something that a Hills or Nicklaus would concede is impossible and simply design a cart ball course).  The course has a terrific variety of short and long 3's and 5's.  He asks for shots to go both left and right over situated hazards.  From the very first hole, he announces the challenge to your game by demanding a left to right tee shot and a right to left approach to optimize the flow of the green.  The weaknesses of the course are that the bunkering is average and certainly not inspired like Barona and the 18th hole is a flat out train wreck.  I have been told that the tree is the owner’s fault and not Fazio's.  Fazio knew the tree would wreck the second shot and the owner still would not let him cut it down.  This course is a bulletproof Doak 7 and absolutely belongs in the bottom 1/2 of a top 100 modern list.

The above is the conundrum.  Why not allow your legacy to be defined by Shadow Creek, Flint Hills National, Victoria National and so many other new works of art?  Why the need to tarnish your legacy with the aficionados by trivializing the work of the masters and bastardizing their accomplishments?  I just do not get it!

[Bob_Huntley]

Lynn:

I cannot recall Rocky's looks. I do remember Mac Hunter, Dean and myself talking Rita Hayworth into taking some lessons. She was no longer the stunner from earlier days and surprise, had the skinniest legs.  

[Mike_Cirba]

I saw this one sinking to the bottom and thought I'd bring it back up because I think we were making real progress here.

I really hope Tom Anderson comes back....I hate when we start making sense and the other guys run away...  

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

Regarding other guys running away, I never understood or liked that either.

In part, I think it involves the phenomenom Tom MacWood sometimes refers to, specifically people being unable to articulate what they like about architects not favored here, e.g., Fazio, R. Jones, etc.

Often people will say "I think ______ is a great course" or "I think _______ is a great architect".........but when asked to explain why, they disappear.  Making matters worse is that fact that this practice is often done by anonymous posters.

Anyway, I do hope Tom Anderson will jump back in.  I'm dying to hear about the "perspective" of people who play but don't build golf courses.

[Tom Anderson]

Mike

I assure you I am not running away.  Just collecting my thoughts.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

David W. Well said earlier. I am amoung those who agree that Fazio ia a great architect and not a great renovator of existing courses. He was at Torrey Pines Sunday by the by.

[Disappointed witness]

I am currently employed at a very high profile club where Tom Fazio is the consulting architect.

Most architects would kill for a gig like this, and would certainly make it a high priority.

Based on the lack of attention that our ongoing projects have received from his assigned associate, much less from Mr. Fazio himself, I am shocked and saddened by the apparent lack of concern that he has for the preservation for one of the game's truly great courses.

Fortunately, the club has generally demonstrated an admirable respect for the original designer's intent, and the course is in the hands of an extremely talented and passionate superintendent.

Nonetheless, Fazio's stated lack of respect for golden age architecture is readily apparent is his approach to this job.  Though I've never seen this particular case discussed on this site (I'm frankly surprised that certain feature changes have seemingly escaped everyone's notice), it is not unlike Augusta, Merion, and Riviera in that his firm's influence and lack of attention is pushing the course in the wrong direction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Wigler,

Yes and No.

I've played Shadow Creek.

I think it is a creative marvel, an engineering marvel, a construction marvel and a good golf course.

I don't know that I agree with your assessment that it is an architectual marvel, or that it automatically qualifies as a top twenty course based on architectual merit alone.

I think we both agree that the creative process resulting in the golf course deserves praise, I just think we have some difference of opinion on the loftiness of the architectual merit.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Anderson;

Great to hear that you're still here and getting your rebuttal together.  Opposing viewpoints are ALWAYS welcomed here!  

You wouldn't believe it with all of the spirited and sometimes acrimonious debate on this board, but most of us are actually friends.  I hope you decide to join us on a regular basis, or perhaps with some of us on a golf course or over a beer someday.  

Best Regards,
Mike

[Tom Anderson]

Let me try to answer the specific questions.

George:

I can give no explanation as to why Fazio does the renovation work he does.  I do not know the courses, situations, conditions or any other aspect of the projects well enough to allow me to comment with any weight.  I have read many comments here by people in a better position than I to understand the full scope of each individual renovation, and their thoughts are clear.  They feel Fazio and his design associates lessen each course by disregarding the original designer's ideals and strategies, I gather.  This work disrupts much of the character and individuality of the courses because of the Fazification.  These are the most off cited criticisms I think.  I will not argue either point.  My only comment would be this about the one course I have seen.  Riviera was opened in 1926 or so, correct?  I have seen some of the original photos of the golf course.  I have played there recently as well.  I believe and honestly think if Fazio and his design associates restored Riviera to the day it was opened many of the people on this site would claim that he ruined the golf course.  People love what Riviera has become, what it has evolved into.  The bunkers have had hundreds of thousands of sand shots blasted out which have considerably raised the outside contouring and sand lines while thickening the faces.  George Thomas's bunkers were distinctly flatter with less shadowing and face depth or I am blind.  The greens have recieved the majority of this displaced sand altering them incredibly in the past 75 odd years.  The green rebuild in the early nineties preserved the current grades at that time, not the greens of 1926.  Two of the most distinguishing characteristics of the course have changed in no small way from what Goerge Thomas built.  I do not use this as an excuse for further alterations, merely as a comment to those who seem to exhibit apoplexy at the destruction of ORIGINAL LOOK & DESIGN INTENT.

Mike:

I do not believe that Fazio's best work ended in the late 80's and the early 90's.  For a man you feel has spread himself thin in the last few years he has designed at least 8 courses that I have seen which I feel are very solid, containing strategies and beauty.  Karsten Creek.  Estancia.  Flint Hills National.  Stock Farm.  Spring Hill.  Briggs Ranch.  Aldarra.  Shady Canyon.  I would think many an architect would not mind this body of work - especially during a slump in their 'batting average'.  If these courses are considered 'pretty' and 'vanilla', but void of strategy, then Fazio is held to a much higher standard than many of the architects debated here.  Your second question I hope I answered with George's.

Your third group of questions I will answer with this.  I think most here hold a certain group of classic courses in the highest regard.  How can I find fault?  I love the game of golf and its history.  I ask though, what do you honestly hold dear?  The golf courses true original surfaces, hollows and rolls?  The look, feel and playing characteristics of the current bunkering, or Thomas's as builts?  Don't get me wrong, for those who will take this as open season on great older clubs, golf courses should be allowed to age gracefully and those that do we call classics.  But think about what it is you say when you deliver the pillories you do.

Tim:

I am talking about putting some of the criticisms in perspective.  I think it is fair to say that a common criticism of Fazio is how much his courses are to build.  I think that people who broach this subject know very little about how golf courses are built and even less about the intrinsic costs.  Fazio, because of his track record, is afforded the opportunity to build his designs in a manner that many architects are not.  He requests solid construction companies, he requests the proper amount of drainage, he requests the best irrigation systems, he requests the best playing surfaces, he requests landscaping, etc., and he gets it.  This will make the numbers rise.   I have seen many posts on this site from gentlemen who have worked on Fazio constructions on how soildly they are built in relation to his peers.  They know.  So when people criticize the numbers, do they even have a clue as to what went into that number?  I really don't think so.  Those are the criticisms I put in perspective.  As far the general criticisms of design go - everybody is a critic as soon as they are able to hit two straight.  It is the nature of being a golfer.  Different people have different tastes.  Discussions along those lines are interesting and lead to lively debate.  Those criticism and comments I have no issue with.

I would rely on criticisms from no one.  I would go play and see for myself.

I go and play courses which tempt my curiosity.  Either for what I have heard or seen, or hope to find out.  I also play courses simply because they are there.  As I said, criticisms are fine to me when the person knows about that which they are criticizing.  I have heard great things about courses and have been dissapointed.  I have heard terrible things about courses and have been overjoyed.

David:

I hope some of the above answers you as well.

[Tom Anderson]

Mike

Sorry.  That was to read 'pretty', 'vanilla', and 'void' of strategy'.  The late hour has scrambled some wires.

[David Wigler]

Tom,

Thank you for a well thought out reply.  I agree with the vast majority of what you said concerning Fazio's work on new courses.  I have played many of the ones you listed and if you throw Victoria National in there (Which may be his best work yet) that is a slump similar to what Sammy Sosa had last year.

My bone to pick with you is in his restoration/renovations.  You have clearly established yourself as an aficionado.  Do you believe that holes out of character with the remainder of the course wreck the aesthesis and flow?  Have you played Inverness?  If yes, what did you think of Fazio's work there?  I promise you would not need to read about the renovation to identify his stuff.  Even if I accept your contention that Riviera of today is nothing like Riviera of "The Captain," Fazio's history is to insert a piece of Pelican Hill into Riviera.  To take this analogy to the extreme, imagine walking through an exhibit of Erte's art.  In the middle of the exhibit, they display a Rubens.  In the context of an Erte exhibit, you would look at the Rubens and say, "What is a picture of a bunch of naked fat women doing in this exhibit."  The same would hold true in reverse.  That is the concept that I am convinced Fazio does not get.  

Desert Inn is being completely torn down (A hotel built where the golf course currently sits) and Fazio is building DI 2 out in the desert.  I am sure it will be both brilliant and far better than the original DI.  This is where Fazio really shines.  If he had been tasked with simply changing DI, I fear it would have ended up the same mish mash of differing styles.  That is where he falls down.

Tom - again thank you for staying in this debate.  I am counting on you to help me when Fazio is picked on for his modern designs.  We will go to war together.  I just wish he would leave the classics alone and let a Doug Nichols (As a side note, have you seen how good his work at Cal Club is.  He blended it perfectly to the character of the course) or some other restoration expert, take on these projects.

[TEPaul]

Tom Anderson:

You're remarks (apparently) in defense of Tom Fazio are interesting and quite good. They are, however, nothing that has not been heard and written on here before.

On his own new construction work most on here are in somewhat general agreement. Some think the overall tenure of his own work is quite good, some very good! These same people sometimes say that most of his courses are low on things like strategy etc. I, for one, don't really know about that because I've not seen many Fazio courses. The ones I know best, Galloway and Hartefeld are not really low on strategy, particularly Galloway. Matter of fact there are a number on holes at Galloway that have strategies that are as interesting and good as some of the very good classic courses I'm familiar with! So personally, I can't say that much about Fazio's new construction generally and shouldn't.

His apparent secondary career in the "restorations" of famous classic courses is another matter altogether though.  First of all your early remark that many of those on Golfclubatlas that are critical of this part of Fazio's career really may not know what they're talking about in this vein, and consequently (apparenly implied by you) that they should not remark on these things since they aren't in the business, don't know how to do grading plans, drainage, bunker or green construction etc, is to me the height of misunderstanding or even arrogance on your part and a real failure too to understand what many of these contributors do know!

I'm very sorry if that sounds like harshness towards you but that is an attitude that is sometimes common among architects particularly when they come on here--and it's not the truth at all, and I think therefore it needs to be said and resaid anytime someone mentions that, as you did! You will probably come to be amazed what some of these contributors do know about classic courses and in extreme detail. It's my belief that it might actually be very instructive for Tom Fazio and those that work for him to come on here and learn a few more things about classic architecture, it's look, evolution and playabilities.

And the case in point is your apparent defense of Fazio's work at Riviera as one that leaves "evolution" alone to some degree and does not take the course back to the exact look and contours of Thomas's 1926 course. That's an argument, or defense of Fazio's "restoration" of Riviera that's extremely shallow and not very valid and it really misses the point of his restoration efforts almost totally.

The greater and more valid point that is the point of some of the architects we admire on here is why do the restorations of various elements of some of these classic courses at all? And if restorations are done, to do it very carefully so as not to disturb in many cases those extremely interesting "evolutions" that you speak of as if we (or they) are not aware of it. We are aware of it and in some extreme detail and that actually is the primary criticism of Fazio on here--that he simply does not understand and appreciate things like that!!

Merion's bunker restoration is the best case I know of to make and prove that point. Those bunkers were essentially 80+ years of some of the most fascinating "evolution" architecture knows of! Clearly Merion's bunkering had terrible drainage problems and definitely needed resanding!

Those are two separate and distinct problems! Because they are it did not necessarily mean that the grass surrounds had to be taken apart and rebuilt in the new generic style of MacDonald & Co. that has real similarity amongst Merion, Riviera, Bethpage and Rolling Green now and at best is a loose mimic of the way Merion's bunkers used to look.

Hanse and Co. was doing Merion's bunkers but they were doing them basically by hand and very deliberately and that apparently was not fitting into the scheme of things and the timing of things. Coore and Crenshaw were approached by Merion and their architectural advice (and probably the most valid of all) was to just leave them alone or at most do the drainage and sanding! But Fazio took the job pro bono and sent a young associate to oversee the job by a bunker contractor who apparently relies heavily on machinery to reconstruct bunkers in a very similar manner course to course.

But why does Fazio do this and keep doing it when he admittedly does not even claim to have that much respect for classic courses or at least far less than numerous other "restoration" architects?

My opinion, that would probably surprise some on here is a bit different. Generally the extremely well known architects of the modern age established their reputations to a large degree doing this kind of work--call them redesigns or restorations or whatever you want to call them. And they did them to some of the best known classic courses in America, many of them "championship" courses and most of them for US Open preparation. That is highly visible work and definitely served to make the public aware of these architects in the first place--best examples, RTJ, The Fazios (certainly Tom) and Rees Jones! The other star of the modern age, Pete Dye just didn't really get into this in his career!

So the fairest question would be if that started these architects off in the first place, why would they stop now? Because they're now famous? That's not very likely. Fazio himself may even be doing it to give some of his associates the high visibility he once got from this work. At the least I have never met anyone who has not said that Tom Fazio is not the nicest and most consderate architect they know!

But does that make this "restoration" ("redesign) work good or correct or right? Not in my opinion and obviously not in the opinion of many on here. And as to exactly why--and in exact detail that would probably surprise you--they can explain it to you in such a way I would be very surprised if even you would disagree.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Anderson,

Thanks for your thoughtful and well-written response.

I have only a little to add to what Tom Paul and David Wigler just said so well.  As someone who watched the entire bunker process proceed at Merion over the past year, Tom summarized the situation perfectly, and the sad fact is that something historically unique and valuable has been lost.  

I also am pleased to hear that you believe Tom Fazio's newer courses (and you specifically listed them) are equal or superior to his best work created earlier in his career.  I cannot comment either way, because I have not played any of those you mentioned.  Some friends of mine played VN last year, and their reviews were mixed, but I have no doubts that it is a fine golf course.  Others here who have played the other courses you mentioned may want to weigh in to concur or disagree as they see fit.  

His newest I've played is Pine Hill, next to Pine Valley, and I was quite disappointed with what I'd call a missed opportunity on a great site.  I've heard that The Preserve in California is another such example.  

Still, as I mentioned earlier, I believe Tom Fazio is a very talented guy and I hope that every course he builds is a great course.  We need more of them, and he certainly gets the wonderful land and the money to succeed.

I just have one other thing I'd like to question about your response.  I too have seen old pictures of Riviera, mostly from Geoff Shackelford's books, and I wonder why you would say that returning the course to that level would be met with dissatisfaction here?  Those pictures look tremendous to me.  My lord, the bunkering around the 6th green in "Golden Age of Golf Design"...how much better does it get than that?

And yes, I do realize that bunkers evolve, particularly those that see a lot of activity.  Merion had the same issue with the fronting bunkers on 8 & 13, and those need to be handled on a case by case basis after thorough examination and research on how they affect current and desired playabilities.

Still, I believe there is such a thing as a "sensitive restoration", a term I believe I heard Gil Hanse use, which seeks to find the best middle ground between saving what is historically valuable, touching up only what is necessary, or restoring what has been lost over time.  This type of activity takes research and some judgement calls....but, what it takes most of all is respect;  respect for the course, respect for the historical significance, and respect and understanding for the intentions of the work of others who came before him.  

That last element is what I sense is missing here.  

[George_Williams]

Shivas-

Have you ever tried Blue Bell Vanilla from Brenham, Texas?  there can't be any better!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tom A
I don't think anyone is interested in restoring Riviera to the day it opened in the 1920's. The course has evolved gracefully -- a credit to Thomas's original genius. The bunkers originally had very irregular almost sawtooth edge and that has softened over the years, but the complexity of shape and extraordinary 3-D quality of these bunkers has not changed. In my view it wise not alter that evolved look.

The flood unfortunately effected several holes and it would be wonderful to restablish those lost holes as Thomas designed them while at the same time considering the overall evolved look. The changes that I have seen have not accurately recreated those original designs, nor do they reflect the evolved look (some of the bunkers look like bad MacKenzie knock offs, nothing like the evolved Riviera look and some of the other features seem to be completely new). Did Fazio attempt to restore the holes accurately (conidering the evolution) or did he take some of the general concepts and just ran with them, keeping in the forefront of his mind the course needed to impress a potential US Open committee? You seem to be very familar with the course both as originally designed and current 'restored' version - could you detail the specific improvements carried out by Fazio  (there seems to be some conflicting reports and perhaps you can clear it up)?

[TEPaul]

Perhaps if Tom Anderson would like to have a good and detailed discussion about Riviera he should have it with Geoff Shackelford on here. We can say things about Riviera that we've seen in photos and heard recently but none of us have even remotely close to the detailed knowledge about the history of Riviera and it's entire architectural evolution that Geoff Shackelford does. He wrote one of the best club history books ever done about a golf course about Riviera for goodness sakes--who better than him to discuss Riviera?

George Thomas is also his favorite architect ever, so far as I know!

[Lynn_Shackelford]

;)Tom Anderson thank you for your well thought out remarks.  I think they have added greatly to the discussion group.  I believe we all have much in common when it comes to golf architecture.  I can't add much more as TE Paul, as usual, has detailed feelings and facts in print so well there is little left to say.  But if you are ever able to find out why Fazio takes on these restorations we would sure like to know.  As a member at Riviera for 15 years, I know the course pretty well.  George Thomas was a genius in design and it is frustrating when someone sends one of his associates to redo Thomas' best design.  Tom Fazio is held in high esteem in the industry and with that comes responsiblity.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Anderson,

I'm still lost as to why you suggest there is something wrong with commenting on the cost of building a golf course, as if the people paying the bills should just keep their mouth shut.

That just doesn't seem like the real world to me.

I spent a few years watching Fazio & Co build my home course and learned a few things about why the actual expenses significantly exceeded the original plan.  But, even if I had not spent quite a bit of time on site during construction, like every member, I received candid feedback on the Fazio recommendations that led to cost overruns.

Million dollar cost overruns inevitably lead to criticism.  That's appropriate, don't you think?  But, I didn't see it come from people who "didn't have a clue".  Rather, it came from business people who expect a project to come in on plan.

As for not relying on criticism from anyone, that sounds nice, but most people lack either the time or money to go check out everything for themselves.  That is why it is very useful to exchange ideas with people who are familiar with venues one has missed.

Most of what I care to see requires traveling from my hometown of Cleveland.  Indeed, it can requre traveling a long way.  Before I spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to visit a site, I'd like to have some idea from people I trust whether the trip is worth it.

[Tom Anderson]

David:

I think that bunkers, greens, even holes too out of character with the rest of the course are difficult not to note, but I think it is a matter of degree.  I would say that one of the most recognizable and loved characteristics of Augusta National is the old greenside bunker in the middle of the 10th fairway.  It is completely out of character with what the other bunkers have evolved into and has no match on the course, but it is adored and considered quite aesthetic.  So, sometimes, things out of the ordinary may attract as well.  I do not relate this to renovation work, though.

I have not played or seen Inverness or the Cal Club so I do not know to comment.

TEPaul:

I apoligize if my comments are old and secondhand.  They are new to me.

I think if you reread what I wrote, you'll understand which criticisms I find fault with and which I don't, I hope.  I was not speaking of the critics of Fazio's renovation work.  My issue was quite different.  I too believe that many people on this site have expansive knowledge of many classic courses regardless of their lack of experience of routing with a scale or shaping with a D-6.  Perhaps this will help.  I remember reading a critique on this site of Ocean Trails, Pete Dye's new design on the Palo Verde Peninsula.  The opening comments seemed rude, thoughtless, and aimed at Pete Dye with a certain arrogance.  They were uneccesary to honest discussion on the architectural or lack of architectural merit in the course.  I am good friends with the person who was the grow-in superintendent for Ocean Trails.  He told me about an afternoon he spent with Pete, alone walking his original routing of the golf course.  He said he swore Dye had a tear in his eye as he laid out what was to have been a spectacular design.  To Pete's detriment, the Zuckerman's got greedy and sacrificed some of the best property for development  They left Pete with a smaller, tighter space which forced him into much of the containment.  Sorry for the soliloquy or 'soapbox', but that is what puts certain criticisms in perspective for me.

Also, I did not condone or defend Fazio's work at Riviera or any place else.  I do not know enough to comment on his renovations.  I talked about how much the bunkers and greens have evolved from Thomas's original and I do not think I said that Fazio is one who leaves 'evolution' alone, nor that he achieved this by not going back to Riviera 1926.  I understand that you do not appreciate Fazio's renovation work.  I have zero problem with that.  I am unsure why you chose to write what you did.

Mike:

I have not played Pine Valley, but I have The Preserve.  I have mixed feelings.

I felt, and still do, that the majority of people who love Riviera love it for what it has become.  Some would certainly love Riviera to be restored to its earliest days.  The fact that Thomas's work has evolved into something exceptional does not mean it was not so at the beginning as well, I agree.

Tom M & TEPaul:

I really do not taken exception or delight in Fazio's renovation work.  I said that I would not argue the points because I do not know enough to.  I have seen a few old photos of Riviera and played it once.  I am no expert to speak on specific points and do not need a debate with G. Schackelford to prove it to you all.  I was speaking generally, and only of that I had observed.

Tim:

I really do not have a problem with the vast majority of architectural critics.  I do not know what else to say.  You have detailed knowledge of your home course's construction budget and you spent time studying the construction and design process.  Tim, I think that is great and that when questions arise concerning those points you are an excellent resource.  My comments were not directed at you - please do not take offense.  I hope my answer to TEPaul clears my intent.

I too listen to trusted friends for their thoughts on different courses, but I reserve judgement until I play or see it for myself.  I am sure you do as well.  That is what I meant.

[TEPaul]

Tom Anderson:

Is there any chance you could get together with Pat Mucci and teach him how to respond to questions and the architectural opinions of others half as well as you do so we can have cogent disussions on here with a minimum of fireworks? We might even take up a collection and pay you handsomely to do so!

I admit many of us, when on here, are sort of like unruly apes in the zoo but Pat is the biggest Ape in captivity! And futhermore he cavorts around bashing the other apes and even claims that we will never know what he really thinks because he sees no reason to admit that.

But you have excellent Internet manners and are beginning to teach some of us how to be nice little monkeys with some semblance of human manners who can actually learn to speak to each other with what might appear to be civility!

Anyway, as to what you said to me; "evolution" on a golf course like Riviera is a fascinating and tricky subject and takes a most knowledgeable and judicious resource to even begin to understand the complexities and ramifications of. It's a subject a really good restoration architect must know as comprehensively as possible to even understand what to do much less do it! Geoff Shackelford would have been the best resource imaginable for that at Riviera, but, alas, the twain never met, for whatever reasons.

Going back to the exact look of Thomas's 1926 course, contours, whatever, may or may not have been the best thing to do--evolution should be looked at in the overall but in every nuance too, to get the best for the course and its playabilities for today, I'm sure.

A restoration architect could take the course all the way back or leave the evolution completely intact, for sure, but I can't see that it's ever good to do things architecturally that are neither all the way back, something in between, or evolution left alone. Doing something that never was at any time is not good restoration to me--it's not restoration--it's redesign!

I completely hear you on the vignette you told on Pete Dye's ideas gone awry for reasons that may never be known! Even to the best architectural analysts those are sometimes things that may never been known, some things that many architects sometimes never admit, for fear of exposing someone or something they feel uncomfortable in exposing or for reasons of not wanting to appear to make excuses. Obviously the very reasons they build thick skins or need to!

The compromises architects sometimes have to make are truly the little known fact of the business that almost no one would imagine and in that you are correct to bring up things like true knowledge of routing, grading, drainage, floating or whatever obstacles architects have to deal with on an ongoing basis--which very much includes people who want it another way for even ridiculous reasons.

That's one of the reasons I have great respect for Gil Hanse. He takes criticisms for things that were beyond his control and seems not inclined to ever completely explain what really happened.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tom A
I understand you are admirer of Tom Fazio and you think he is damn fine architect - but you of have an odd way of defending him on a thread about tinkering with classics. You admit you are not an expert on all his renovation projects over the years, but you are familar with his results at Riviera. Then it turns out you've played the course once (post restoration I assume) and you've seen a few old photos, and you're not willing or able to talk about any of the changes in detail. I must admit I'm a little disapointed I thought you were familar with Fazio's work there and the original design, when you lack the basic information defending someone's actions can be difficult.

Perhaps you were just trying to make the case that Tom Fazio is still a very good architect dispite some of his unfortunate renovation work (which you really don't know too much about or probably care about)?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()