You guys are stupid...#2 Typical Fazio

[JakaB]

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.

If you remember..which four and why or who were they created.

[SPDB]

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

1. Enormous greens, with relatively little contour.

This does illustrate the typical knee jerk reaction that I think JakaB was trying to uncover. Often times people default to "typical Fazio" without understanding a) what those "typical fazio" qualities are, if any, and b) if those "typical Fazio" qualities are that objectionable, or form the basis of people's objections to "typical Fazio" features (assuming again that they exist in the first instance.

In my experience discussing Fazio courses with people, mostly on this site, Fazio's greens (as opposed to "green complexes") are pretty well done, and his use of contours, interesting. Sometimes the complaint is that they are overcontoured.

Some examples, which I believe are pretty representative.

The 6th at Hartefeld, one of the most brutally and beautifully contoured greens I know:



another 6th, this time at Victoria


These are examples, and maybe I'm wrong and Fazio only cotours on the 6th green at each of his designs.

People probably have a lot of quarrel with some of Fazio's design elements, personally, his stated reluctance to cross bunkering is one of my pet peeves. However, undercontouring probably could not (or, objectively, should not) find a place in  anyone's complaints.

[JakaB]

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.

Where at Sand Hills does the strategy overtake the beauty...and at a private course when is too much beauty overkill....why does the cost of beauty matter if it is purchased freely and openly by the membership...who the hell does beauty for beauties sake hurt....Stupid people need a little beauty now and then.

[Tim_Weiman]

AG:

Understood.

My recurring thought is how well we all do - myself included - describing an architect's work for those that haven't seen much of it. This strikes me as a pretty big challenge. Words that may apply to Architect A may also apply to Architect B. Thus, at some point the words may become a blur for those that haven't seen the courses for themselves.

FYI, there is an interesting book that has seldom been discussed here called:

"Golf Travel By Design, How You Can Play the World's Best Courses by the Sport's Top Architects".

This book attempts to summarize the work of about twenty architects, including "The Forefathers", "The Modern Masters" and "The Next Generation".

Here are the words or concepts used to describe Fazio courses:

Beautiful and elaborate bunkering
No blind shots
Trouble left
Massive earthmoving
The Pine Valley Look

For comparison's sake, here are the comments about bunkering for some other architects:

Old Tom Morris - Pot bunkers
Donald Ross - Bunkering as the hazard of choice
Alister Mackenzie - Surprisingly few hazards
Robert Trent Jones - Large visible fairway bunkers
Pete Dye - Pot bunkers
Athur Hills - Irregular and menacing bunkers
RT Jones, Jr - Bunkers in play
Greg Norman - Aiming bunkers, ample greenside bunkers
Rees Jones - Extensive bunkering
Tom McBroom - A lot of bunkering that doesn't come into play

The authors do go on to explain each sound bite. One won't agree with every desription, but the book's attempt to describe the architect's work - not just bunkering - makes it kind of interesting as a reference guide.

[Tim_Weiman]

SPDB:

I agree with your reference to Hartefeld National as an example of Fazio greens with pretty wild contour. In addition to #6, the eighth hole green stands out in my memory.

JakaB:

Beauty for the sake of beauty doesn't hurt. What does hurt is when a project team achieves beautiful presentation at the expense of interesting golf shots.

FYI, #6 at Ballybunion may be the best example I know of a golf hole without any beauty, but where the recurring challenge of the shots themselves make it a lifetime joy to play.

[George Pazin]

If you remember..which four and why or who were they created.

In this order:

1) WW Rolling Oaks 4/97
2) WW Pine Barrens 4/97
3) Primm Valley Desert 9/01
4) Osprey Point - Kiawah Island 7/03

Thought WWRO was pretty but completely unmemorable, though WWPB looked super cool & can remember about 4-5 holes clearly, thought PVD was playable for a desert course, which is saying something for me, though again I only remember a couple holes, thought OS was nothing exciting & nothing boring. I can remember it okay because I only played it 2 months ago, but I don't think I can even remember all the holes.

Contrast this with Inniscrone, which I played in 8/01, I remember every hole like I played it yesterday.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with his courses or his organization or his style (setting aside the "restoration" work), I just don't it too compelling for the "top architect alive today."

As for the second half of your question, that's not a brand of English I'm familiar with.

[JakaB]

JakaB:

Beauty for the sake of beauty doesn't hurt. What does hurt is when a project team achieves beautiful presentation at the expense of interesting golf shots.

Tim or anyone,

Please give me one specific example of what you suggest.  Could have the 17th green at Pebble have been better situated if the architect was not so interested in the beauty of the ocean...is this what you mean..

[JakaB]

George,

I don't get you...you seem to be young, intelligent, generous and with an athletic build.  Why are you a 15 handicap...are you nuts.  I have never played either of the WW courses but from everthing I have read and been told...they are above non-memorable.  Sorry but if I may go out on a limb..your opinion is stupid as it relates to one of the great public golfing complexes in the nation for price, access and design.

I say this with some hesitation as I have opined from your picture that you could kick my ass.

[JakaB]

Shivas,

As a student of architecture and a known scholar of capitalism and the free rights of the stupid consumer...do you think many of the mistakes you site for the Glen site are the result of it being a public course...Are these some of the price (architecturally) that must be paid in the public arena...do you believe Fazio would have done things different if he were looking at a small membership private design.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I was trying to stay away from this one because of, well you all know. It would be just me to hammer the man to death on something so mundane as the Best in Golf today. I just don't think he is even clos to being that, nor should even entertain the thought.

Shadow Creek remains to me a mystery of how a golf course with such magnificent earthmovement be awarded the distinction of the most boring green complexes on a Top 10 rated course that I know of. There is a lot of repition going on there, and given he had a blank canvas, you would have thought he and Wynn could have come up with much better. There are a lot of repeticious golf holes out there too, and as Shivas has provided--lots of containment mounding in the form of not TYPICAL Rees mounds, but more massive earthmovement to create a half-round or bowled-out shape. How many punch bowl-like backstops can one get away with in 18 holes? Is it me, or does the feel of hole 1 & 9, 2 & 13, 3 & 6, 11, 14 & 16 have a eerie resemblence to them? Where is a real provocative green at Hartefield #6 at Shadow Creek?
Why is there so much containment and similarity of golf holes at both Pelican Hills courses? Why is it the same at Quarry @ La Quinta? And on, and on, and on, and on.

But more specifically................Why is Tom Fazio destroying Riviera Country Club?

Yes, I'm stupid. Typically stupid.

[Tim_Weiman]

JakaB:

I would nominate #3 at Sand Ridge as an example of the emphasis on visual appeal at the expense of strategic interest. Numerous bunkers flank the fairway on this par five, but not enough to really give the golfer much to think about in terms of shot placement. There is one bunker in the left center of the fairway about 90 yards from the green on this 575 yard hole, but the project team could have more creatively placed bunkers to make the second shot more thought provoking.

FYI, I played both Pelican Hills courses several times during my years in LA. Beautiful scenes of the Pacific Ocean are plentiful, but I don't recall many holes where bunker placement gave me much to think about.

[JakaB]

dbb

[George Pazin]

George,

I don't get you...you seem to be young, intelligent, generous and with an athletic build.  Why are you a 15 handicap...are you nuts.  I have never played either of the WW courses but from everthing I have read and been told...they are above non-memorable.  Sorry but if I may go out on a limb..your opinion is stupid as it relates to one of the great public golfing complexes in the nation for price, access and design.

I say this with some hesitation as I have opined from your picture that you could kick my ass.

This is one of the funniest things I've read in quite a while, but it's filled with factual errors.

Sadly, I'm nowhere near a 15 handicap. This is due to a lot of reasons - serious swing flaws that I don't have time to practice on & fix, a mediocre short game, & mostly the fact that I don't have much opportunity to get out.

Young, intelligent, generous, with an athletic build? Well, I'm 36; standardized testing would seem to imply yes, the results of my life to date would seem to imply no; hopefully yes on the third count; my wife might agree on count 4, but many others wouldn't.

I am generally of the mind that the WW courses are a little overrated. They look pretty & I think that's what most remember. I can think of a half dozen courses in Pittsburgh that are less expensive than RO that I'd rather play for fun reasons only. PB was great looking, but I think there are as many non memorable holes as memorable ones. I remember about a half dozen pretty clearly, another half dozen kind of fuzzily, & the rest not really at all. My opinion may be stupid, but I've never held it up as any sort of standard that everyone must blindly believe (unlike several on this board).

To address your points to redanman, he's not just the best in his own mind - it seems as though many media outlets have adopted this as the party line and it seems that many developers believe it as well. My limited experience would indicate otherwise.

As for the money thing, I don't really care one way or the other, though I do think it sets a bad standard for the game in general when reports are put out that almost seem to be bragging how much money is spent. But that's the PR driven world we live in, so I don't really blame him for that.

One thing I will say about his courses is that I don't think the greens lack contour, as someone previously noted.

[TEPaul]

What exactly is this thread about? Is this just Barney trying to figure out why some people think many of Tom Fazio's products don't measure up to his otherwise stellar reputation amongst the vast majority of golfers who really don't give a damn about golf architecture?

[Dan Kelly]

Let me ask a question -- based on what I'm reading here (having never played a Fazio course):

Is it just possible that there IS no "typical Fazio" -- and that that's one reason many here do not revere him?

[John_Conley]

I learned a few things.  One is that Rich Goodale has somehow never played a Tom Fazio design and another is that I'm stupid.  I'm not sure why, but I am.

Anyhow, I'll take a stab at defining "typical Fazio" design.  The normal result when Tom Fazio's design firm works on an average site.

I'm a bigger Tom Fazio fan than most and really love his courses that sit on good sites.  Black Diamond Ranch (Quarry), Pine Barrens at World Woods, John's Island (West), and Rolling Oaks at World Woods are some examples.  I'm told Wade Hampton and Victoria National are as well.  

When you get to average sites and "neighborhood" courses, there is an element of sameness.  The 5th hole at Alaqua Lakes, 3rd at Bonita Bay's Cypress Course, and one hole at the PGA Reserve (South) {I think, the course on the L when you hit the clubhouse} are pretty much the same.  I can provide other examples of similarities if necessary.

I think most people really like these kinds of courses.  I know I do.  It's just that as you play a number of them - and we have a lot in Florida - you come to know what to expect.  

I think a study of Tom Fazio's top courses gives you a different impression than if you look at the middle-of-the-road stuff.  (Obvious statement, John.  Any architect would like to be measured off their best work.)  I doubt other architects would have varied work in they won as many jobs as Tom Fazio has been able to.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

John,
This is a question, but IS Black Diamond Ranch a good site? I seem to remember something where Fazio was saying it was a site that was horrible for golf, and that he had to create it, which of course means. Now granted, he made a former quarry really pretty with golf holes, but what is a definition of a good site? Is the Quarry utilized much like Merion East, where it figures into play? (forced carries etc.)(Mind you that George Thomas thought Riviera was a bad site for golf, yet made it into a REALLY good site.)

[A.G._Crockett]

Dan
In the Crabapple thread comment that JakaB said started this, I had orginally written "classic", then changed it to "stereotypical".  I used that on purpose, feeling that it might be more acceptable to people here who DO like his courses, since they could then find comfort in the stereotype as false.  I thought it made sense, but maybe not.

I have played on 5 Fazio courses that I can quickly recall;  whether the golfer "likes" the courses or not, IMO there are some typical features.  That is not to say that there aren't exceptions, as there probably are for every architect's work.  I also think that when the characteristics are listed, it tends to sound very, very negative to most on this site because of the love of "classical", minimalist architecture here.  Whatever Fazio designs ARE, they aren't classical or minimalist designs.  

In fairness, I should add that 4 of the 5 courses that I am thinking of are here in the Atlanta area, and all five are in the southeast.  I'm more than willing to admit that the terrain might dicate some of the similarities in the features of the courses as much as the architect's personal preferences.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Another thing; I don't think it's an obvious statement as you suggest. As shown, who would think that the swamps near Atlantic City would sustain as good as golf as Galloway is, or in the wilds of Indiana like Victoria; who would think you could find a pretty good Fazio course in the hills of Irvine like Shady Canyon (the best one I have seen to date, or lets put it this way, the most consistent with a snooze at holes 11-16)

Tim doesn't like the word typical because it certifies much of Golf Club Atlas as being set in our ways, and I can see somewhat of what he is saying, but I don't know any other word to call his really repetitive works which are boring beyond belief. And believe me, we have a lot of them here in SoCal.

[TEPaul]

John Conley:

Your post #44 gets more interesting when one ponders it. You very well may have hit upon one of the keys to Tom Fazio's overall inventory and also a certain modus operandi that runs through many or most of his products.

I'm no student of Fazio courses but the more one considers what you said the more commonsensical it becomes and when it comes to holes on otherwise mundane land (as opposed to holes on really interesting natural landforms) the more Tom Fazio seems to conform to the undeniable style of his uncle George!

As Henry Higgins said; "I think you've got it."

The problems inherent in designing the amount of work he's done in any one year seems to jibe well with the problem Bill Coore mentioned on this website in an interview as to why not to try to do too many course at one time.

Coore said something to the effect;

"It's hard enough to design 36 holes in a single year--trying to design 136 holes is just too much!"

[A_Clay_Man]

I can tell ya'll that I was lucky to be able to golf at Shadow Creek and Butler Nat'l within an 11 month span and my take on the two course was one was great course and one was collection of 18 very good golf holes. One had soul and one didn't.

[jimhealey24]

Sounds like the first dozen or so posts set the tone for a anti-Fazio thread.  Yet few of them indicated they played enough to really know anything about his courses.

Have you seen Victoria National?  Butler National? Pinehurst #6? Osprey Point? Barton Creek? Ventana Canyon?  And those are just for starters.  Exactly what is boring or formula-based about them.  Has he done some that are less-than-great.  Sure, who hasn't.  But when these were finished they were hailed as among the best of the year - and some remain so today.  If there is a problem today it's that it is hard to continually out-do yourself.

His work has been among the most praised for years.  His courses are generally very playable, have dramatic vistas (where available), and make good use of water, sand and the terrain.  What more do you want?

[moth]

I believe if you asked most designers/golf course architects who they admired most among their contemporaries (and is alive) - I believe a substantial majority would have Fazio in their top 3 (probably after Pete Dye in most cases).

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Moth,
I agree. They admire him for his ability to make money and dominating the market in dire times.

[moth]

Tommy - not at all.