[Mac Plumart]

In Tom Fazio's "Golf Course Designs", he says the following...

"If you compare photographs, year by year, of Augusta National, Oakmont, and Pine Valley...you'll notice that the holes as they are today bear only a surface resemblance to their original selves.  Bunker have been moved,...Holes have been redesigned...Greens have been altered....
How important is it to preserve a golf course exactly as it was rather than allowing it to evolve with time?  Our answers will tell us something about our attitudes toward the game.  For me, it is enough to keep the spirit of a golf course intact while keeping it in top condition and in step with the times."

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?  I think it is a given that Augusta has changed dramatically, but I doubt many think that was for the better.  I don't know about Oakmont of Pine Valley.  What about his question in the last paragraph?  How important is it for an architect or super to allow a course to evolve and keep in step with the times?

[Tom_Doak]

It is interesting that he uses as "proof" of his viewpoint, three courses which Mr. Fazio himself has been aggressively making changes to over the past 10-15 years.

Other than tree growth, Pine Valley and Oakmont have probably experienced more change in the last 15 years than in their first 75.  Augusta, of course, has been making changes since they opened.

[JESII]

Mac,

Were you listening to Tom Paul and I talk last night? Very creepy...


Tom Doak,

At it's core, do you disagree with Fazio's thought process... which seems based on utilizing the advancements of construction, maintenance and playing technology with the goal of creating the best experience he can?

His thought process, not your opinion on his results.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...interesting point.

I don't know if you saw my post in the "Books" thread, but I pointed out there that Mr. Fazio's take on golf course design is 100% opposite of the "Golden Age" designers...and I think 100% opposite of your style as well.  In fact, he has a section entitled, "Using vs. Creating Terrain".  Fascinating.

Also, you point out that he used 3 courses that he has been working on to "prove" his point.  Due to my ignorance, I didn't know  he had been working on all of those courses.  But I did notice that all of the photos in the book are from his courses.  And I also picked up on the marketing of the Fazio brand that was/is going on in the book and its text.  In fact, Bob Crosby pointed this out to me a few days ago.

I am wondering if Tom Fazio is like RTJ in that he is golf course architect by trade...but perhaps he is more of a business man.  Like I said, I am wondering about that...not 100% sure of it.

Thanks.

EDIT...Jim, what did Tom P. say?

[George Freeman]

Other than tree growth, Pine Valley and Oakmont have probably experienced more change in the last 15 years than in their first 75. 

Tom,

I was under the impression that these two courses were pretty darn close to the courses they were 50-60 years ago (although, over its first decade or so, Oakmont was tweaked many times by the Fownes duo, correct?).  The fact that you say that these two courses have experienced more change in the last 15 years than in their first 75 strikes me.  What types of changes occurred at each, besides the massive tree clearing at Oakmont?  Even more surprising is that these changes were done by the hand of TF...

[TEPaul]

"If you compare photographs, year by year, of Augusta National, Oakmont, and Pine Valley...you'll notice that the holes as they are today bear only a surface resemblance to their original selves.  Bunker have been moved,...Holes have been redesigned...Greens have been altered....
How important is it to preserve a golf course exactly as it was rather than allowing it to evolve with time?  Our answers will tell us something about our attitudes toward the game.  For me, it is enough to keep the spirit of a golf course intact while keeping it in top condition and in step with the times."


Mac:

To even begin to answer the questions you pose with the quotation above, I suppose one would really need to know in some real detail what exactly Fazio means by "spirit" when he says; "For me, it is enough to keep the spirit of a golf course intact while keeping it in top condition and in step with the times."

For instance how does the idea of the "look" of the golf course as it was intially created and developed by the original architect factor into keeping the "spirit" of the course intact?

A very good example (question) would probably be----does the "look" of Merion East's bunkers after the Fazio bunker project in the last decade keep the "spirit" of Merion's famous "White Faces of Merion" intact compared to the way they used to be and the way they used to look? And if not, why not?

[TEPaul]

George Freeman:

With Oakmont, the Fownses, particularly WC pretty much kept on developing and evolving Oakmont, particularly its bunker numbers for just about forty years. After WC resigned in the late 1940s and died, the course underwent some pretty significant redesign including bunker removal and redesign including a massive tree planting program. Before around 1950 Oakmont had very few trees on the playable parts of the golf course.

Pine Valley was just about the opposite----eg after a number of years of development and changes by Crump to Pine Valley and even before the course opened all 18 holes, Crump died, the club basically did one finishing up project I refer to as the 1921 Advisory Committee project that included Alison, Flynn, perhaps Thomas and Maxwell et al. The latter project was done essentially to get all 18 holes in play and to fix some that were deemed very problematic in play. And after that the course was essentially left alone architecturally other than the late 1920s---early 1930s inhouse project known as "stabilizing the course" or "Holding the course together" which entailed the planting of thousands of trees and terracing and vegetating various unstable sand areas so the course would not devolve and collapse in those areas. After that the course was pretty much left alone architecturall (with the exception of two minor items by John Arthur Brown) until the middle 1980s and on when some changes were made to the course pretty much all under the direction of Tom Fazio.

[Steve Burrows]

I know I will sound like the cynic here, but my reading of a handful of texts by golf course designers shows more than a hint of self-promotion for their services.  Mackenzie, Tillinghast, Fazio, and others all stress the importance of hiring a "first-class" architect (or some other similar language) for such work.  Not coincidentally, they also all consider themselves to be "first-class' architects.  

To be fair, they seem to be using their secondary talent as writers to document their theories on design, presumably to open a larger dialogue that might lead to the creation of even better golf courses (and this should be commended), but there also seems to be a capitalist in all of them, just hoping that their words will intrigue an investor to hire them, rather than someone else.   Ultimately, I don't think that Fazio is to be held in any lower regard for his statements than any designers from the past who spoke likewise.

[JESII]

Steve,

I agree, and have to imagine the leading architects of today would as well...

[George Freeman]

George Freeman:

With Oakmont, the Fownses, particularly WC pretty much kept on developing and evolving Oakmont, particularly its bunker numbers for just about forty years. After WC resigned in the late 1940s and died, the course underwent some pretty significant redesign including bunker removal and redesign including a massive tree planting program. Before around 1950 Oakmont had very few trees on the playable parts of the golf course.

Pine Valley was just about the opposite----eg after a number of years of development and changes by Crump to Pine Valley and even before the course opened all 18 holes, Crump died, the club basically did one finishing up project I refer to as the 1921 Advisory Committee project that included Alison, Flynn, perhaps Thomas and Maxwell et al. The latter project was done essentially to get all 18 holes in play and to fix some that were deemed very problematic in play. And after that the course was essentially left alone architecturally other than the late 1920s---early 1930s inhouse project known as "stabilizing the course" or "Holding the course together" which entailed the planting of thousands of trees and terracing and vegetating various unstable sand areas so the course would not devolve and collapse in those areas. After that the course was pretty much left alone architecturall (with the exception of two minor items by John Arthur Brown) until the middle 1980s and on when some changes were made to the course pretty much all under the direction of Tom Fazio.

Thanks for the info Tom.

Oakmonk:  Are you familiar with myriad changes that Oakmont has made in the last 15 years (per Tom D's original post), besides the tree clearing?

Pine Valley:  What were some of the things Tom Fazio did to Pine Valley in the 80s?

Too many Toms!

Thanks in advance!

[Mike_Young]

Steve, Jim and all...

I think all of us in any business need to be good salesmen and hopefully we all consider ourselves "first class" in whatever occupation we perform.  
So I don't really blame TF or any of the other signatures for promoting as they do....BUT I think it is important to note that most of the promotion of the "brands" comes from developers..these guys could care less what type of design the signature puts on the ground...they want/wanted to sell REstate....I feel most of us are confidant we could do the same work or more if given the same budgets etc...AND could acquire more of such projects once you have a large RE developer promoting your product....Golf architects can't afford to promote anything like a developer....or a resort....
BUT after saying all of the above...what really bothers me over the last 25 years with the "signature" period of design..is the "over selling"....
Most of what TD speaks of in an earlier post has come about because these guys "over sold" an unknowing membership ...AND think about it..most of the redos at private clubs come about from a committee who only knows to listen to the supt....they know zero about what will happen and they know that Club A down the street spent 5 mill so if they were to spend less...something has to be wrong...I saw a masterplan by a signature for 18 holes not long ago for $175,000 plus 15% to watch over construction.... and it was ok with the club....
The extravagance that so many of these guys promote is ridiculous....most redos can be "spoon fed" and done over time by bringing greens out to the original edges...reworking bunkers etc.....the wholesale reworking of so many of our older courses in the name of modern technology and quality is in most cases a complete joke.  I am watching one take place now....
Remember it is not the architetural ability you are paying for in these case but the abilty of the brand to increase lot value or membership value....or at least that used to be the case  That's why we had the Eddie Bauer model Ford Explorers  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak's statement regarding Oakmont and Pine Valley is accurate, while Tom Fazio's statement on Pine Valley is inaccurate.

As Tom said, other than tree growth, Pine Valley was essentially static for about 75 years.

The exception was the introduction of a second green on # 9, but, other than that, very little intentional changes took place.

I view the changes made in the last 15-20 years as a reactionary response to the quantum leap in distance over that same time period.

I don't consider "elasticity", or non-contrived lengthening as an architectural change.
Many architects incorporated that flexibility into theif designs.
TEPaul and Wayno can certify Flynn's beliefs on that subject.

Other than lengthening, flattening greens has occured in reactionary response to very high green speeds.

OK, so what has changed, architecturally, in the body of the holes, that portion between the tee and green that leads Mr Fazio to his conclusions ?

Narrowing of the fairways and the concurrent moving of the bunkers to match, ala Oakmont ?

Are these systemic changes ?  Or, are they limited to courses holding major championships ?

If a trend occurs at major venues, but, nowhere else, is it a general trend in the golf world, or an anomaly confined to the PGA Tour ?

[JESII]

Pat,

Have you found a bunker at Seminole that's deceptively close to the green yet?


Mike Young,

I believe the saying is..."E Pluribus Unum"...Let the Buyer Beware!



Seriously - if a course can be talked into making a change for the sake of change then they are also likely open to later spending the money to unwind what they did...also in the name of change.

[Mike_Young]

Seriously - if a course can be talked into making a change for the sake of change then they are also likely open to later spending the money to unwind what they did...also in the name of change.

Jim,
I don't know.....for most of the guys I see making the decisions...they could walk in the factory where a Polo shirt is being made..watch it come off the line....and watch someone put a logo on one and leave the other blank...they would buy the logo....
As I have mentioned before...the donkey was a product of a committee....and if one has the signature name it is too easy to sell these guys...but maybe they will...
Have you ever noticed how...a big time signature might come back and make changes to a project within a year or two of it opening...might changes some greens that don't work...move a path etc....WELL...let a regional architect try that and see if the club doesn't try suing him or using another architect....

[Tom_Doak]

Are these systemic changes ?  Or, are they limited to courses holding major championships ?

If a trend occurs at major venues, but, nowhere else, is it a general trend in the golf world, or an anomaly confined to the PGA Tour ?

Nowhere else???

In the last twenty years, I'd guess that the top 100 courses in the USA have spent $150 million on changes proposed by golf course architects, whether they are aimed at "updating" or "restoration".  The publicity that Augusta and some U.S. Open courses have generated for their changes has led hundreds of other clubs to follow suit, because their members think if the USGA has suggested it, it must be necessary.

[Mac Plumart]

Steve...

I have no doubt that you are correct when you say that many, if not all, of these "Golden Age" designers were business men and, therefore, needed to close deals to keep their business going.  And, therefore, their books could simply be marketing tools.  No doubt about it.  However, I also got my Thomas book in the mail the same day as the Fazio book.  Here is something he says in the Foreward...

"we should revere the cradle of golf with its fine spirit and distinct atmosphere; but we may also be proud of our own development, and strive not only to keep up the standards of our past, but to go on to improve our newer productions, for the ultimate in golf and golf architecture has not been attained."

This leads me to believe that Thomas really cared about golf course architecture and wanted to see it reach perfection over time, rather than simply build a business.  In fact, didn't he build a few courses and then go into gardening?  Or is that someone else?

Anyway, maybe Fazio thinks he has improved golf course design to a near perfect state and simply wants to share?  But I get a more pure marketing sense from the book...but maybe I am off base.

[Stewart Abramson]

Mike Young,

I believe the saying is..."E Pluribus Unum"...Let the Buyer Beware!

Out of many, one?

Caveat Emptor

[Mac Plumart]

Tom P...

I think a lot of what you say in one of your prior posts is totally on the money.

If one is going to restore or rennovate a golf course AND strive to maintain the original spirit of the course they need to understand what the original spirit was, right?  They need to look at old pictures, overhead photos, read club minutes, etc...to get a sense of that spirit.  

EDIT...all course and names removed.

[Mac Plumart]

Jim S...

You could throw these into your quiver as well...

Carpe Diem

Semper Fidelis

esprit de corps

I don't know what they mean, but that seems to be unimportant!!!  

[Tom_Doak]

Mac:

I will get back to this in a little while, but, you should really refrain from making posts like your last one.  You have no idea of the process that went on at any of the clubs you just mentioned in your scattershot "compare and contrast".  You shouldn't generalize that much without understanding what went on.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom D...

fair enough, but if I want to learn about it/them I am unsure how to do it other than ask.

If you recommend I change the post, please PM me and I will.

My apologies if I offended anyone.

Thanks.

EDIT...names and courses removed from a previous post.  

[TEPaul]

"Thanks for the info Tom.
Oakmonk:  Are you familiar with myriad changes that Oakmont has made in the last 15 years (per Tom D's original post), besides the tree clearing?"


George Freeman:

I'm not familiar with the changes made to Oakmonk in the last 15 years but I am pretty familiar with the changes made to Oakmont in the last fifteen years, some of it being basically restorative---eg bunkers particularly and of course massive tree removal. If I don't know something in detail I certainly know who to ask and I can pretty much guarantee you he won't tell me.  

[TEPaul]

Well, now that we are getting into this thread subject of questions for historians and architectural gurus about the appropriateness of restoration or improvement or whatever of the courses of the ODGs, I guess it would also be appropriate to ask the flip-side of the question or subject, perhaps from the perspective of some clubs, which would appear to be-----to what extent is GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and its core contributors full of shit on this important and burning question and subject?   

[JESII]

I'm not familiar with the changes made to Oakmonk in the last 15 years but I am pretty familiar with the changes made to Oakmont in the last fifteen years, some of it being basically restorative---eg bunkers particularly and of course massive tree removal. If I don't know something in detail I certainly know who to ask and I can pretty much guarantee you he won't tell me.  

It's all Greek to me...

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak,

At it's core, do you disagree with Fazio's thought process... which seems based on utilizing the advancements of construction, maintenance and playing technology with the goal of creating the best experience he can?

His thought process, not your opinion on his results.

Jim:

I am not sure what you mean by the "thought process".  If you define it the way you did above, that's pretty general, and not going to get much argument.

I think I disagree with Mr. Fazio's opinions at a lot of fairly basic levels.  Most of all, when it comes to working at old clubs, I try much, much harder to do whatever we do so that you can't tell we were there ... and if a proposed change cannot be pulled off seamlessly, we won't do it.  I get the impression from Mr. Fazio's writing that he does not care about that at all, and doesn't mind a bit if you can tell he was there, because after all, he thinks modern architecture is much more advanced than anything which came before.

You might know him better than I do ... I haven't actually sat down and talked with him for 20 years, and back then he avoided consulting work at clubs completely, because of the controversy his uncle ran into at Oak Hill and Inverness.  But, have I got the wrong impression?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()