[Mike Hendren]

The 14th at Wachesaw Plantation is a short par four with a generous flat landing zone.  The smallish green sits some ten feet below the fairway and is protected by a steep horizontal berm with a small gap in the middle which accomodates the ground game and even provides a narrow gate for the big hitter from the tee.  The pitch must be precise as anything slightly short will be propelled through the green with a sharp fall-off behind. 

I love this hole and hope someone can post photographs.

Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

No pictures other than my photographic memory. I love that hole.  Also, good evidence that Faz doesn't mail it in.  I think with his vast portfolio, he probably has more unique holes that fit their land like that than anyone.  It may be smaller when measured as a percentage, but in total, he may be the champ.


I don't recall from my one time there that the front was such a propellant.  It would be a shame if it offered the run up but then rejected it.  I thought you could use it for the ground game if you had to. (or wanted to)

[Mike Hendren]

Jeff, I should have been more specific -  the narrow gate is gently sloped and kept as fairway to accomodate the ground game.  On either side the back side of the berm is relatively steep, however and if the pin is anything but center cut makes the approach difficult since anything catching the backside of the berm will lurch forward.

Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Yeah, that is the way I remember it, too.....I don't see a problem with having to play to the green center if using the run up. So far, Congress has enacted no law saying I have an absolute right to pin access, have they?

[Bill_McBride]

Mike,

Yeah, that is the way I remember it, too.....I don't see a problem with having to play to the green center if using the run up. So far, Congress has enacted no law saying I have an absolute right to pin access, have they?

"That's not fair!"   

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff Brauer,

Your motives were called into question on another post.  And I've given you grief before for some of your earlier mounding and for a tendency at times to over-contour (IMO) greens which are then maintained at speeds that make them impossible.

Yet here you are, publicly complimenting the work of a competitior who is regularly treated on this site as the bete noire of gca.  How refreshing.  Apparently you haven't received the memo that bringing the successful down to the level of mediocrity is the order of the day.

While I haven't played the subject course, nor do I possess anything close to a photographic memory, I can't think of a single Fazio course that I don't like.  Just a couple of weeks ago I played his course at Carlton Woods and was greatly impressed.  I can think of a half dozen of his courses in Texas that vie for the top 10 in the state.  And while I think the consistency of quality holes, variety, and great detail are his greatest strengths, his firm does build excellent short par 4s.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,

I got (I think) a nice compliment yesterday by someone who said I was their second favorite gca, after Fazio.....

I wasn't quite sure what to make of that, but I guess it was a compliment!

Fazio makes very few mistakes, although you could argue that with his clients and budgets (Hey, if Congress doubles the stimulus spending, they might come close to equaling a Fazio budget!) he shouldn't.  But then, some do make mistakes wth similar budgets.

I do think some of his bashing here is merely because of his success and in part because he designs for clients who want a relativey clean look, no matter what the expense.  No one seems to bash Pete Dye for building similar holes over and over again, and some day, even CC and TD will have problems with that if they keep reaping the top commisions.  If they can do better in avoiding repitition that the busiest gca's of the past, more power to them.

But, those are opinions, subject to charges of motivational bias.  It is a fact that Faz has lots of unique and interesting holes in his portfolio, and especially in short par 4's.  I have never felt his par 3 holes are a particular strength, though.  That is actually a bit unusual for top gca', nd especially so for those so well versed in the visual arts like Faz.  He builds to many with just a single, small bunker, IMHO, with pretty straight forward shots, whereas I tend to think the par 3 offers a chance for a concept hole play wise, and given you can take in the entire hole in a glance, more of his great looking bunkering.  As always, no motivation here and just MHO.

Lou, I might agree with you on the green contours, but you have been saying that since GSW which really aren't that wild.  I did try to push the limits of contouring at Cowboys, Indian Creek and Bridges, and I do think I found the upper limit.......but even with my newer work, I hear complaints about over contouring when the greens slope less than 2%, which I just can't understand.  There is no pleasing some people, I guess.

[Kalen Braley]

If I did my figurin' correctly, this is an aerial of the hole.

[Kyle Henderson]

I have seen very little of Fazio's work 1st-hand (renovations at the UNC Finley Course, and Edgewood). My impression is that I would enjoy playing the majority of his work more than the average course thanks to strategic bunkering, aethetics, the general lack of "throw away" holes, and excellent conditioning (ubiquitously sand-based fairways).

But there are some major obstacles that prevent me from playing his tracks.
1) Location: He builds relatively few courses near the American west coast,
2) Cost: He tends to build high-budget and generally very private tracks (i.e. Martis Camp, The Preserve and Shadow Creek, his most prominent western works.)

How many of his courses are truly worth the time, effort and expense of travelling eastward from California?

Victoria National and the World Woods courses (FLA) seem like the most worthy candidates.

Other nominations?

[Kalen Braley]

Gozzer Ranch in Northern Idaho is very good as well.  Its the only Fazio I've played, but it has a number of terrific holes!

[Lou_Duran]

Lou,

Fazio makes very few mistakes, although you could argue that with his clients and budgets (Hey, if Congress doubles the stimulus spending, they might come close to equaling a Fazio budget!) he shouldn't. 

I have never felt his par 3 holes are a particular strength, though.  That is actually a bit unusual for top gca', nd especially so for those so well versed in the visual arts like Faz.  He builds to many with just a single, small bunker, IMHO, with pretty straight forward shots, whereas I tend to think the par 3 offers a chance for a concept hole play wise, and given you can take in the entire hole in a glance, more of his great looking bunkering.

Lou, I might agree with you on the green contours, but you have been saying that since GSW which really aren't that wild.  I did try to push the limits of contouring at Cowboys, Indian Creek and Bridges, and I do think I found the upper limit.......but even with my newer work, I hear complaints about over contouring when the greens slope less than 2%, which I just can't understand.  There is no pleasing some people, I guess.

JB,

I got an IM from a GCAer yesterday who I consider to be very smart and he argues that the the stimulus should have been over a $1 Trillion (ala Paul Krugman and the apologists for the failure of Great Depression spending, that it wasn't "bold enough").  Perhaps Fazio could overcome the perceived shortcomings of his detractors if his unlimited budgets were larger.

Actually, we disagree on the par 3 issue.  Just looking at DN, the first one is a bit bland perhaps, but he likes to get the round started slowly and the green does have enough interest.  The second one is outstanding (Matt Ward made a natural 3 on this one, hitting his first shot to a different zip code, and knocking his third from the same spot into the hole), a little Redanesque.   The third one on the ledge is usually into the wind, but not very long; precision without force with plenty of beauty and danger all around.  The $1 Million natural (man-made) canyon, fourth (#17) requires a long club that can be played on the ground or flown to the pin on a green that is not only very large, but with a lot of movement.  A fairly diverse set if you ask me.

As to GSW, I think Bill Vostinak agrees with you.  You can choose to not believe me, but while the fine condition of the greens are typically appreciated by the members, the contouring is not.  Despite my constant reminders to some of them that Sowell directed their style, he is long gone and the architect still gets the blame (fortunately, the turnover is such that probably fewer than 20% know your name).  But at 6700 from the tips, the greens and the tight hole corridors are its main defenses.  I don't have the same perception of the greens at Cowboys, and I think that the set at The Bridges are very gamy and nowhere close to being over the top.

As to pleasing people- something that I recommend to people seeking to be successful in business- Hal Sutton stressed to his design partner at Boot Ranch that he wanted mildly sloping greens which allowed the golfer to make well struck putts on the proper line.  Unlike a couple of the site's favorite architects who tend to build courses which defend par primarily on and around the greens, Sutton wanted to reward putting as the final act of the average player's struggle on the course.  Though Boot Ranch is in financial trouble, I greatly enjoyed the course and the feedback I've gotten from a number of people who've played it is very favorable.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,

We can agree to disagree about DN. I was also looking at a broader Fazio spectrum when I made my comment, but its not really that well thought out anyway. 

GSW did have a chance to flatten contours a bit when they re-grassed the greens. No one consulted me, and the greens were recontoured by the grass company, BTW. I think greens with tiers in them, like 9, all got blended together for greater overall slope.  It is the details that make the difference and a few inches of nip and tuck probably would have satisfied most complainers, but it didn't happen that way.

[Lou_Duran]

Disagreement about preferences is good if you believe as I do that variety is the spice of life (and I am not referring to Tiger's recently acknowledged proclivities which were well-known to insiders long before he got married).

From my POV, I haven't been overwhelmed by Fazio's par 5s, primarily on the second shot reguirements.  Though he is not unique in this regard, after getting the tee shot into position, unless one has the length to go for the green on the second, the lay-up shot is often pedestrian.  BTW, that is the same problem with GSW's 9 & 18, which I wish you had found some way to remedy.

I think you are right about GSW's greens and the lost opportunity when they converted from SR1020 to Champion.  When the course re-opened following your work, the longer bent allowed the supt. to use some flatter spots for pins which were very challenging, but still enjoyable.  No doubt that raising the pads and building new bunkers with flashed white sand greatly improved the visuals to help attract new members (and ultimately to sell the property).  Unfortunately, as they cut the greens down a bit and the weather and amount of play started to impact their health, they had to start pinning on the slopes which made it for some goofy golf.

The conversion to Champion has been succesful, but the firmness and speed of the greens in conjunction with their greater slope have changed how the course plays in a way that a number of us don't like.  One of the things I like the most about Plummer's work is that though his courses are not flashy, they have great balance- the long and short games are challenged with similar proportion.  GSW is still challenging off the tee for small sticks like me, but most of the difficulty is on and around the greens.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,

Well I did nothing in 1994 to change the challenge of the tee shots, save perhaps the 3rd hole although that was always hard.  And while I didn't flatten the greens circa 1994, I really didn't increase the slope of any greens either.  Had I not done the work, the Plummer course would have been just as hard today, wouldn't it?

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff,

You didn't change the tee shot requirements except a bit on #1, #3, and #15 (did you remove the left fairway bunker on #2) , but technology has to some extent.  You didn't change the slopes when you redid the greens?  I joined GSW since 1981, and the greens had a much lower profile, with more subtle contours.  I thought that they fit the site and the architecture much better, and could be set-up for tournament play or a co-ed scramble with relative ease.  I think that the new greens are much more difficult, a couple of shots at least, even with greater focus on set-up.  The loss of 300+ yards  when Sowell sold part of the property offsets this, but that was prior to your renovation.

BTW, I hear that a recent "cost-of-living" dues increase is motivating a considerble number of resignations.  The day it drops the mandatory riding policy for weekend morning tee times, I'll consider coming back, so it is not like I object to your work there all that much.  It is still an enjoyable course to play. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()