[JNC Lyon]

After reading the two recent photo threads on Fazio courses, I was very surprised that there was more or less universal praise for the two golf courses.  Nobody stepped up to criticize these Fazio layouts or point out that the courses might have been better if they were built by a different architect.  From what I saw in these photos, these courses appeared overproduced and over-manicured, with architectural features that aimed for artificial perfection rather than ruggedness or strategy.

Has this site stifled criticism of architects like Fazio, Rees Jones, Jack Nicklaus, and Arthur Hills in recent years?  One of the most important parts of this site is pointing out what is wrong with this modern architecture, something that the rest of the golf world is unwilling to do.  Folks on the site were never bashful about criticizing these architects.  This honesty was one thing that drew me to the site.  Contributers here were willing to say these architects were overhyped in the rest of the golf industry, and they did not hesitate to point out flaws in their courses.  People realized that Donald Ross was a better architect than Tom Fazio, and that Seth Raynor could run circles around Rees Jones.  There was a sense that some types of courses were inherently good, and other types of courses were inherently bad.

In recent years, many on the site have become defensive of these architects, to the point where anyone who criticizes these architects is dismissed as bitter and narrow-minded.  Now we are supposed to believe that what is "great architecture" is whatever any given individual thinks is great architecture.  Furthermore, when some one points out that a perfectly manicured Fazio layout is contrary to the spirit of the game, the response is that "Joe Sixpack likes those courses, and nobody cares what this board says."

Shouldn't our goal be to poke holes in these modern layouts?  For me, any modern layout by likes of these architects should be handled with strict scrutiny.  If one of these layouts survives our criticism, then it is probably a course of some great merit.  But we are not doing are ourselves any favors by refusing to find fault with these architects.

[Andy Troeger]

JNC,
Obviously you are just bitter and narrow minded! 

Aldarra is a very good golf course, regardless of how it might look in the photos. Its not minimalistic, but I never will care about that, especially compared to many here. I found many of the holes to have strategy, and would prefer a repeat play over a fair amount of GCA favorites.

One note--in my opinion Fazio does a lot of excellent work. The quality of his work is much closer to Doak/Dye/Coore & Crenshaw/etc than it is to Rees Jones and Art Hills.  Nicklaus does a lot of good work too, but I tend not to elevate quite as much of it to greatness.

[Tom MacWood]

Yes. As an example Tom Doak looks at this site as his home away from home, a refuge from criticism and an ego boasting exercise. But to his credit Doak has opened himself to criticism as an out-spoken critic of others and by not joining the ASGCA which prohibits criticism.

[JC Jones]

Perhaps we should criticize/praise the golf course irrespective of who the architect is?

[Gary Daughters]

Stifled?  That's pretty strong stuff.  How?  

I can't see anything that's stopping you or anyone else from criticizing any given course, hole or architect you'd wish to.  Give it a shot.. see what happens.    

On second thought... maybe wait a few days.

[Gary Daughters]

Yes. As an example Tom Doak looks at this site as his home away from home, a refuge from criticism and an ego boasting exercise. But to his credit Doak has opened himself to criticism as an out-spoken critic of others and by not joining the ASGCA which prohibits criticism.

Having just played Old Mac, I see no reason that Tom Doak needs an ego boasting exercise, whatever an ego boasting exercise is.

[jim_lewis]

I think I have made the following point many times over the past decade on this DG.

I find life a lot simpler when I evaluate and comment on  a course without regard for who designed it, when it was built, how many times and by whom it has been modified, whether it is private or public, how impressive the clubhouse is, how friendly the staff is, their walking policy, or how much it costs to play or join. It is very risky to generalize about an architect's work unless you have seen a large sample. All those other considerations just get in the way of a fair and accurate assessment of the course itself. I believe most architects are capable of producing excellent work and most have done so given circumstances that make it possible.

[Ed Oden]

JNC, have you considered the possibility that the courses mentioned on the Fazio threads were praised because they are very good courses?  Please re-read the comments on those threads and I think you will find that they are chock full of extremely detailed information about routing, strategy, options, angles, playability, deception, fast and firm conditions, etc.  And you might also notice that they did contain criticism.  I know, because I offered criticism of my own club which are far more detailed than yours.  So I believe your premise is wrong.  In fact, I think it is far more likely that the opposite is true and "praise" of modern architecture (Doak and C&C excepted) has been stifled.  I can tell you with complete honesty that I rarely speak positively of certain GCA whipping boy designers since it is just not worth it.  Doing so isn't fashionable on this forum.  When substantive comments of quality are made, they are too often overwhelmed by arguments based largely on stereotypical perceptions.

[Tom_Doak]

JNC,

I have to agree with you ... political correctness has taken over the site with regard to new courses.  But it is hardly a surprising development, considering the founder covets the title of Golf's Most Beloved, and that many of the real critical voices on architecture have left the site in recent years.

I am as guilty as anyone.  I hold my tongue about many modern courses because there are a dozen posters here who will accuse me of attacking a fellow architect and competitor for anything but a glowing review, and I've decided it's just not worth the hassle.  Unfortunately, so have many others, even those who don't have any conflict of interest.  Hell, it's barely worth the hassle arguing with Matt Ward over the details of my own courses and being accused of being thin-skinned, just because I don't agree with his ideals.

It really ISN'T personal, as much as people play the name card here for whatever purpose they want.  In the end, golf course architecture is ALL a matter of opinion.  Some people believe that makes their opinion as right as anyone else's.  Others believe it means that no one has the standing to criticize a professional.  But it's a shame if those two poles are drawing everyone apart, to the point where no one can recognize the truths in between.

[Tim_Weiman]

JNC:

Not sure our goal here should be to pokes holes in modern designs.

Instead, I would rather people articulate what is noteworthy about a golf course or venue - good or bad.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom Doak,
One of my favorite posts at GCA was your efficiently great "Eeeek" when I posted a picture from Trump's Bedminster.  

JNC,
Ok - here goes.  Rees Jones builds crap courses today.  His remodels generally stink and kill the designer's original intent.    Examples of crap:  Sandpines (OR) and Broad Run (PA).   If the Jones brothers could stop trying to one-up each other, perhaps they'd focus on golf and produce better work.

Of course, they get a lot of their bad influences from their father.  Ask the members of the 'Mink how successful RTJ was there!

I also adore and love Mr. Palmer.  But I've yet to be wowed by one of his golf courses (I've only played a few).  Of course, the game of golf is much better because of Mr. Palmer.

Tim - why do I dislike Rees' designs?  They're about as original as the cover of "Freebird" you heard at the local bar last night.  One KNOWS they're on a Rees Jones design.

Boy - I feel better now!

[Melvyn Morrow]

I must admit that there are times I wonder if we are talking about Designing a Golf Course or Sculpturing the land which also might accommodate a golf course either now or sometimes in the future. It seem shard to realise that there is a golf course there and it’s not simple down to artistic or should I say Sculpture licence.  I know that I am regarded as out of date or a traditionalist, playing my home country courses. What I seek is well provided in GB&I yet I smile when I see so many of you and others travelling to GB&I to play our golf. Why are courses like Brora, Dornoch Moray, Cruden Machrie Askernish, Crail, Elie, Bridge of Allan, Blairgowrie Wee Course so popular with overseas visitors. It will has nothing to do with sculpture or arts and craft but they are the result of land selection, and course design, greatly hidden ideas in our modern era.

The wise and all knowing architects from the WW2 have deemed to push us towards the super manicured and pretty  cottage images normally reserved for chocolate box covers. To be crude the modern course design should be regarded as a stretched Pitch and Put course but pushed to some 8,000 yards long. The land and hazards have been regulated as of no consequence, hazards not required on the fairway due to the long hitters, no longer any real need to think when you walk on to a golf course apart from hitting long balls and for island Greens hitting them straight. Sorry guys but do you realise you are slowly killing the game, it will not be carts soon but motorised bath chairs. Golf is fun but you need to think, have a clear de-stress mind to fully enjoy the experience, the last think we need is a real estate maze of a golf course where you only have a hope of surviving if you ride a cart with GPS. Come on make us think, give us choices and let us navigate around the course, testing our skill or keeping as close to Par as possible. Choices Guys because being a big hitter does not always refresh the minds of the majority of golfers.

Is the current period since WW2 the Dark Ages of GCA, No, not quite IMHO but many have pushed hard on this envelope. Yet to be fair to the designers they follow their clients wishes which in turn reflect Joe Public wants and due to the ‘Lets Make it Easy Society’ golf has been dulled by carts and aids, so the general golfing public in their defence don’t seem to know what they have lost.

The point here Guys, yes you Designer and Architects, are you interested in GOLF, have you got the best interests of the game at heart, if so then you need to reinvent yourselves, utilising good design practices, modern technology to minimise the disruption to the land and the construction of the course, be far more critical to the land chosen by your clients, be brutally honest, if its crap, tell them. Like Doctors you have a duty to the course not the golfer, too many courses have come into this world knowing only that they are the product of a savage rape of the land, Traumatised by the destruction, they never seem to blossom into good let alone great course.

Flowery description perhaps but you have seen the result of these nondescript courses, starting with general apathy then slowly tickover with no real direction in life due to their unchallenging nature.


Just an opinion


Melvyn

[Mike Sweeney]

Tom Doak said:

1. In the end, golf course architecture is ALL a matter of opinion.  

2. to the point where no one can recognize the truths in between.


Tom,

I think you have been auditing JC Jones classes, and I for one don't understand the logic to your statement. How does the above work? GCA  is "ALL a matter of opinion" yet there are "truths"? Please explain.

[Sean Leary]

Manufactured=Bad but Raynor is great.

Whatever.

Also, why does every course have to be picked apart for not being perfect? And why only the archies that you mentioned should get run through the ringer. I don't see much criticism of Tumble Creek or Dormie Club either?

[Jon Spaulding]

JNC, if it is Fabio criticism you seek, please do a search for "Bel Air".

Fazio's new work is generally quite good, in the grand scheme.

I save my energies for people named Jones, Robinson, Rainville, Bickler......

[JC Jones]

Tom Doak said:

1. In the end, golf course architecture is ALL a matter of opinion.  

2. to the point where no one can recognize the truths in between.


Tom,

I think you have been auditing JC Jones classes, and I for one don't understand the logic to your statement. How does the above work? GCA  is "ALL a matter of opinion" yet there are "truths"? Please explain.

HEY MIKE!  Don't you know political correctness is a one way street?

[JNC Lyon]

Manufactured=Bad but Raynor is great.

Whatever.

Also, why does every course have to be picked apart for not being perfect? And why only the archies that you mentioned should get run through the ringer. I don't see much criticism of Tumble Creek or Dormie Club either?

Sean,

I figured someone would pull out a Raynor comment on this thread.  Seth Raynor is a master router of the golf course, meaning that he accounted for the land and the best way to use it.  Yeamans Hall is a classic example of a great routing that takes the golfer in all sorts of directions, uses the rolling terrain, and makes for a very pleasant walk.  Furthermore, Yeamans Hall is one of the most natural golf courses you will ever play, partly because of the scruffy maintenance that meshes beautifully with the textures of a low country setting.  Great routing shows understanding of the land.  Name ONE Tom Fazio course that has a great routing where it is easy to walk.  Furthermore, Raynor's manufactured style is not nearly as artificial or contrived, and Raynor's earthmoving certainly has different motivations.  Raynor moved earth to build bold architectural features, to create strategy and inspire great shots.  Fazio moves heaven and earth to create "pretty" courses that don't have a fraction of the fun or boldness of a Raynor layout.  Raynor courses are rugged, and therefore have a "man vs. nature" element to them.  Fazio's architect has none of this.

Earthmoving is not necessarily bad.  Take the Ocean Course, a layout where Pete Dye had to move tons of earth to create a layout that now looks it has been there forever (17th Hole not withstanding).  However, earthmoving to create a contrived look with no regard for natural features is not good.  This is what I see from the modern architects I listed on the first page.

As for criticizing courses like Dormie or Tumble Creek, I am all for it.  While I much prefer that style of architecture, the blowout bunkers run together in my mind.  While I think some of these courses were very distinctive at one time, the look has become hackneyed.

[Andy Troeger]

Name ONE Tom Fazio course that has a great routing where it is easy to walk.  

Victoria National.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak said:

1. In the end, golf course architecture is ALL a matter of opinion.  
2. to the point where no one can recognize the truths in between.

Tom,

I think you have been auditing JC Jones classes, and I for one don't understand the logic to your statement. How does the above work? GCA  is "ALL a matter of opinion" yet there are "truths"? Please explain.

Mike,

Comparing me to JC qualifies as a low blow.  Fight fair, dude.

As to your question, at the individual level, all golf architecture is a matter of opinion.  Matt Ward expresses opinions everyday on the basis of faulty logic which we can all pick apart easily ... but that is still his opinion and he refuses to change it. 

At the same time, by discussing courses new and old, favored designers or not, and picking them apart, one gets closer to understanding that
 there ARE real truths in golf course architecture.  There are things that tend to work and things that don't, even though there are no absolutes, and clearly, no accounting for taste.

If every opinion is EQUALLY valid then there is no point to having a Discussion Group at all, so if I don't win thi,s argument, maybe it's time to turn out the lights.

[Peter Pallotta]

That's a interesting post, Tom.  It makes me think that every era (and every field of endeavour occuring within that era) has its own prejudices -- and not superficial ones either, but fundamental ones.  And I think that in every era, each person who thinks about those endeavours needs to recognize the over-arching ethos/bias/prejudice that is at play, and in some way try to re-balance that. So, for example, there was for many decades the great canon of English literature, with the experts having decided on that canon and the rest of us expected not to argue about it. In that period, it would've been beneficial if some brave souls DID argue about -- i.e. against - the established canon, and maybe even the very idea of a canon. But jump ahead 50 years, and now that the idea of the canon has been shot to hell, and every work of literature-art is being compared to nothing but itself (or at least, certainly not to some dead 'canon'), this seems like that right time for people to step up and argue FOR the canon.  On a site like this, as it is today, I'm not sure anyone has to fight for the notion that all opinions are worth something -- few of us seem to have any problem expressing our opinions.  This may be a time to re-balance that ethos with the opposite one, i.e. one that argues that there ARE fundamental principles in gca, and that some people understand them and that some don't.   

[JC Jones]

Tom Doak said:

1. In the end, golf course architecture is ALL a matter of opinion.  
2. to the point where no one can recognize the truths in between.

Tom,

I think you have been auditing JC Jones classes, and I for one don't understand the logic to your statement. How does the above work? GCA  is "ALL a matter of opinion" yet there are "truths"? Please explain.

Mike,

Comparing me to JC qualifies as a low blow.  Fight fair, dude.

Now THAT is funny!   See Tom, I knew you had it in you.

[Adam Clayman]

I agree that No, stifled is not an accurate tag to put onto the DG. But I also do realize there are several factors that have gone into be a more respectful critic. Especially when one cannot complete the task that they are criticizing.

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but being critical from only photos, is not fair. Yes, you can pick up something that you like, or don't, but, being critical should only come after one has had the experience of the whole.

[Gary Daughters]

"Name ONE Tom Fazio course that has a great routing where it is easy to walk."

Capitol City Club/Crabapple (GA)

Wonderful course.  There are two green to tee walks of pitching wedge yardage.  Everything else is right there.  Easier walk than, say, Palmetto.  Lovely, fun course that plays from hillside to bowl and back to hillside.  PURRRRRRRFECTLY manicured and richer for it, just as some courses are richer for being scruffy.

[A.G._Crockett]

"Name ONE Tom Fazio course that has a great routing where it is easy to walk."

Capitol City Club/Crabapple (GA)

Wonderful course.  There are two green to tee walks of pitching wedge yardage.  Everything else is right there.  Easier walk than, say, Palmetto.  Lovely, fun course that plays from hillside to bowl and back to hillside.  PURRRRRRRFECTLY manicured and richer for it, just as some courses are richer for being scruffy.

Gary,
I thought about Crabapple when I saw the question.  It IS a nice walk, especially for a relatively new course.  Fazio had an advantage there in that he had nearly an unlimited amount of land on which to rout that course; that's rarely the case in this day and age.

I agree that it is perfectly manicured and reasonably fun, but I'd disagree on wonderful.  To me, Crabapple has always seemed to be a huge, huge missed opportunity.  It is an excellent piece of land (and a HUGE one) for sure, but like so many Fazio courses there just aren't many holes that are stirring and memorable.  It is only a couple of miles from White Columns, another terrific piece of property on which Fazio built a golf course that is completely forgettable except for gigantic flat greens.

Everything at Crabapple is on a grand scale.  Huge tees, huge fairways, huge bunkers (few of which are really in play) and huge greens, though they are relatively uncontoured.

I've used the description of "rice cakes" architecture for both courses.  Looks great, but no real taste to it and when you're done you're not really sure you eaten anything at all.  That may be a bit harsh, but only a bit, and it sums up my problem with Fazio courses; too many of the ones I've played strike me that way.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

"Faulty logic."

Really?

According to you -- I might add.

Picking apart "rather easily" when it doesn't suit your fancy too.

JNC:

There is way too often a desire to brand certain architects as not being able to deliver quality golf courses -- those doing so have done so through the prism of a limited portfolio and it's highly likely they have not really played a layout that can be deemed superior or even great.

TF has done high quality work -- it's easy for him to be labeled as the anti-Christ by those who butt kissers of others. You mentioned Raynor -- give me a break. The guy used the same forumla over and over again. No doubt I see a few of his layout as being really fascinating stuff -- Fisher's Island and Camargo leap quickly to mind -- but the rest are cut'n paste versions of the same thing. What new ground was he really breaking? And why do so many here provide a free pass to him when these same folks are so quick to bag Rees Jones, Jack Nicklaus, et al when they do something similar to that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()