You guys are stupid...#2 Typical Fazio

[JakaB]

So...what are these features so typical of Fazio that are found in all of his work...just name three...if you are not too stupid.

[George Pazin]

I have played 4 Fazios in my short career & haven't found any formulaic features. I just haven't found much particularly memorable or exciting, either.

[ForkaB]

JakaB

I've never played a Fazio course, but from my time on this site, the answer is pretty obvious to me:

1.  Non-adherence to classic design principles
2.  Overuse of framing
3.  Lack of strategery

Others who have played his courses can tell me what these answers mean.

[A.G._Crockett]

I'll try not to be too stupid...

1. Enormous greens, with relatively little contour.

2. Enormous bunkers, seemingly random in both shape and      location.  Some here might use the term "unnatural."

3. Courses that TEND to have nothing "wrong" with them, but are unmemorable, and strike the golfer as being opportunity lost.

I might be able to give more, but you only asked for three!

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Jaka/John I like Fazio courses but do not love them for they seem to have beauty over strategy. That is not to say they do not have strategy but it seems that eye candy is more heavily weighted in his courses.

[Tim_Weiman]

JakaB:

I’m glad you raised this subject because I’m not a fan of people saying “typical Fazio”, be it my friend Tommy Naccarato or anyone else.

Why?

The best clue for why such language should be avoided can be found in the somewhat humorous Zagat Survey of America’s Top Golf Courses where I stumbled upon the following course description: “typical Trevino design”.

What the hell is that?

We sometimes forget the obvious: very few people are well traveled enough to write their own “Confidential Guide”. So, when we discuss golf courses on Golfclubatlas we need to understand that most people – maybe 98 percent of the readers – haven’t seen it. That being the case, “typical……” comments don’t cut it, whether they refer to Trevino, Fazio, Rees Jones or anyone else. They don’t provide a description of what one might find if one played the course. Isn’t that what we should be doing? Isn’t that what those who lurk hope to find?

I also oppose the use of “typical…..” because it undermines the credibility of Golfclubatlas. People who like the architect’s work will figure the comment is based on some “bias”, when in fact some real architectural criticism might be in order. Better to spell it out case by case, course by course, for better or worse.

[JakaB]

2. Enormous bunkers, seemingly random in both shape and      location.

That is either stupid or Fazio did the bunker work on the recently posted Sand Hills photos...I going with stupid.

[A_Clay_Man]

Perhaps the word "features" in Jaka's initial query is throwing off the "concepts" which seem lacking.

[wsmorrison]

I must be stupid, I'm reading this thread.  My opinion of George Fazio's work is distinct from Tom Fazio's.  Who is the typical Fazio?

[JakaB]

John

I usually use specific examples.

1-Features which look good and play uselessly.  (Water collection drains which make appealing run-up areas and contours useless strategically due to maintenance meld® failure. Seen at #3 and #15 VN as glaring examples)

Thats great...visit a course one time after a two week rain spell and become an expert on a feature that is designed for the second shot into a par 5 by hitting 130 yd six irons.  The drain on number 3 does not prevent a run up shot from anything over 200 yds out provided you simply hit a low top spin fade.   If you choose to hit a high soft shot to a blind green that is your choice...if you choose to hit a six iron from 130 yds you are stupid.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

Could somebody explain the "lack of strategy" claim.

Could they also use Shadow Creek and Galloway as examples, as I've played those two courses.

Thanks

[A.G._Crockett]

JakaB
I must be stupid, because I don't have any idea what you mean in post #7.  If you'll take another shot, I'll try to respond as best I can.

[TEPaul]

I don't know many Tom Fazio courses but one I'm familiar with--Galloway National--has plenty of strategy and plenty of holes of real character, variety and interest--and in that I mean from tee right on into and through the greens. It has some incredibly rough bunkers in spots too. But the client asked Tom for this apparently.

The George Fazio courses I know are notable in that there are holes that are really good and holes that are remarkably bland. Holes that had natural interest George seemed able to route and highlight exceptionally well but holes on portions of his routings that didn't have much of anything going for them still don't!

[ForkaB]

Pat

It was "strategery" I was referring to, and not "strategy."

Sometimes I have deliberate tyops and sometimes I do nto.

[JakaB]

AG,

You motivated this thread though your comment about Crabapple..congrats.  I took your take that "Enormous bunkers seemingly random is both shape and location" to be a bad thing....I just thought this also described the bunkers at Sand Hills....and we all know how stupid it would be to speak bad of any feature at Sand Hills.

Stupid me.

[Tim_Weiman]

AG:

What JakaB meant in post #7 was pretty obvious to me.

Can you share how you disagree with his point? Does the description "enormous bunkers seemingly random in both shape and location" not apply to Sand Hills?

[Jeff Fortson]

JakaB,

Waterfalls, Goddamn waterfalls.

Jeff F.

[TEPaul]

JakaB:

A.G.'s remark was;

"2. Enormous bunkers, seemingly random in both shape and    location. Some here might use the term "unnatural."

Has anyone here, or anyone anywhere, for that matter, used the term "unnatural" when describing the otherwise similar Sand Hills bunkering?

I don't think so--and probably because the Sand Hills bunkering IS NATURAL! In other words, Coore and Crenshaw didn't exactly MAKE THEM!

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat- I can equate what a caddie says before teeing off as an indication of strategy or perhaps "options" is a better word.  

I.e. when I caddied at Spyglass on the first five holes I would often run the gambit of things to tell a first time visitor. Such as "you can hit it this far here" or "that far there" But when we get into the trees, the options are limited to finding the optimal spot, resulting in me saying "right center or left center" only.

I found this to be also true at Shadow Creek. The caddie stated "right or left center" on every hole. Without options the golf is one-dimensional. One dimension is obviously what some golfers prefer.  Why they prefer it is worthy of another web site all together.

I happen to be the other type, I like to have to think.

WWPB has exceptions to this type casting, most notably on the zig zag par 5 hole #4(?) as I'm sure other Fazio holes do to, just not predominately

[TEPaul]

JakaB:

My general take on much of the criticism of Tom Fazio on here isn't exactly that his products are bad necessarily--not at all--simply that Tom Fazio has the capacity and the ability to do a lot better much more often--simply because he has done some very good stuff. And for what Tom Fazio has done--what in the hell is the deal with all this exorbitant cost? What's the necessity of all that? You tell me--because I'd really like to know!

[A.G._Crockett]

JakaB
I haven't been to Sand Hills, so I can't begin to guess about how I would like it, or how the bunkers would strike me.  I have been to Crabapple, and my comment about the bunkers was sincere.  There are, in fact, just over 100 on the course, and they tend to be extremely large.  All in all, it is a gigantic golf course in every way, and the bunkers are just part of the picture.

By the way, I didn't indicate in that post that I didn't like Crabapple or Fazio courses.  In fact, in June I posted on the Frog, a Fazio course I liked a lot, and got roasted for it!  I don't like what Fazio did at UNC, and I've never thought much of White Columns, which is only a couple of miles from Crabapple and a very similar piece of ground.  I WOULD like to think that I could play a Fazio course that I hadn't seen before and be favorably impressed by it, as I was with the Frog.  Sorry if you took my meaning to otherwise in the Crabapple thread.

Watch the tournament this weekend, and look for the first par five on the back (#12, I believe). There is a split fairway that begins where a mound that was built into the fairway beyond the landing area.  The mound is huge, and has no less than five bunkers cut into it.  It is an odd looking feature to say the least, and has little to do with the way the hole plays, since it only really serves to block the player's view of the second shot.  The expense had to be tremendous, maintenance extreme, and nothing could be made to look more unnatural.  Other than that, its a terrific mound!  That's the kind of thing that bothers me.  Sorry if that's stupid, but I am what I am.

[Mike Hendren]

JakaB,

Waterfalls, Goddamn waterfalls.

Jeff F.

Jeff,

Better make that a small "g" - especially if you anticipate playing in inclement weather in the near future.

Mike

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

You correctly point out AG's complete words on Fazio and bunkering. Obviously, nobody here has ever described the bunkers at Sand Hills as “unnatural”

But, I wonder if many people might react the way JakaB did to the first part of AG's bunker description: "enormous....random….in shape and location”. Do such words really help distinguish one architect’s work from another?

On another point, I share your concern about Fazio and exorbitant costs. He is not alone in being involved with high cost projects (e.g., Herb Kohler, Pete Dye and Whistling Straits), but the emphasis on “quality golf” does come at a high price. Other architects are setting a better example for the game.

[jg7236]

JakaB,


Imagine you are in a living, breathing, growing painting and Mr. Tom Fazio is the artist.

[A.G._Crockett]

Tim
I wasn't trying to distinguish Fazio from other architects.  I was just trying to respond to the question at hand.  I would imagine that there are other architects around that also use bunkers with those same characteristics.  That doesn't mean that Fazio doesn't, or that those aren't Fazio characteristics.

BTW, I emphasize again that I never said that I didn't like the course, or Fazio courses in general.