Are These Good Features (Fazio)?

[Tim_Weiman]

Dave Moriarty took the time to capture some of Tom Fazio’s design philosophy (based on his book) and on another thread various posters are offering their assessments of whether specific courses fit the fold. So, far the feedback is running about 60/40 in favor of the general statements actually applying to his courses. Hopefully, we’ll get more feedback.

But, there is another spin: are the features Fazio expressed preference for good for golf? These are far more difficult questions to offer a simple “yes” or “no” answer, but I’ll give it a shot:

-- Fazio often builds courses on sites unsuitable for golf, by traditional standards.
-- Fazio often disregards the natural landscape/setting if the natural landscape/setting doesnt suit his design preferences.
-- Fazio sets out to build golf holes which photograph well.  He aims for an instant visual wow factor, with waterfalls, sharp features and contours, and other forms of visual flash.
-- Fazio aims to instantly gratify the golfer.
--  Fazio courses prefer downhill and avoid uphill par 3s.  
--  Fazio courses tend to contain misses, especially those on the right side of the golf holes.
--  Fazio courses tend to emphasize framing;  that is, they tend to feature vertical containment on each side of the hole to seperate the hole from the others and provide a vertical, visual frame for the golf shot.  The framing exists throughout the golf hole, and not just off the tee.
--  Fazio courses tend toward elevated, dramatic tees.
--  Fazio courses tend to minimize hazards which are actually in the line of play, and favor hazards which run parallel to the line of play.  
--  Fazio courses arent much concerned for creating strategic, risk/reward options for the golfer.  
--  Fazio courses tend to inform the golfer of the proper avenue of play, rather than confounding the golfer with multiple avenues and multiple choices.

 #1 – No, it has contributed to raising the cost of golf
 #2 – No, natural features provide character and uniqueness to a course
 #3 – Leaning no, but debatable on cases by case basis
 #4 – No, some mystery provides long term enjoyable
 #5 – Yes, I like to see the ball bounce on par 3s
 #6 – No, prefer random
 #7 – No, seems like other things are more important
 #8 – Leaning yes, but shouldn’t be overdone
 #9 – No
#10 – No
#11 – No

FYI, for comparison’s sake I reviewed Mackenzie’s 13 “essential features of an ideal golf course” and found myself agreeing with the good doctor 12/13 times.

[cary lichtenstein]

Tim:

Consider this. When I was in the textile business, we used to set up our print lines for each season. When we did this, we considered who our audience was for each and every stock keeping unit.

If we wanted big volume, we knew how to design it for that customer set, how to color it, etc.

If we wanted to make a design statement, we knew it would not sell all that well, but we could knock the socks off everyone who walked into the showroom, so we did some of that each season. It was important to us to do some of that. It added to our design mystique.

Fazio is designing in a different era than McKenzie for a different audience. C&C are designing for a differnet audience than Fazio. These are very smart, talented designers.

Was Donald Ross the Fazio of his era?

[Tim_Weiman]

quasssi:

If I recall correctly, you are not the first person to raise the Fazio/Ross comparison question. It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of folks especially knowledgable about Ross, e.g., Brad Klein. I haven't developed a view on that.

Otherwise, I've expressed on numerous occasions that the Fazio organization has wide appeal. They couldn't have achieved their success without it. If I were asked to evaluate whether most golfers consider Dave's Fazio features "good", the percentage of "yes" answers would be very high.

Can you share your own thoughts about Dave's Fazio features?

Thanks

[cary lichtenstein]

Question: WHo is Dave Fazio? Did you mean Tom or am I missing something?

Tom Fazio does an excellent job, given the budget and land to create an eye candy, apparent 7 on the Doak scale. I say apparent, because Doak wouldn't rate em 7's, but they look like 7's.

They are fun to play. You can bang it off the tee without a lot of fear, and the greens are big and hold everything.

The fairways are wide, and cupped inwards, so the balls runs to the center. No trickery here.

He does 3 basic type courses, basic for 3 million, delux for 6, and all the bells and whistles for 9. eknee, meekee, minee, moe!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tim_Weiman]

quasssi:

Sorry for the confusion. By "Dave's Fazio" I meant David Moriarty's summary of points found in the Fazio book

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I agree this is probably more what Dave Moriarty had in mind.

Thanks for your input. I struggled with #1 exactly because of the point you raised: availability. Despite living in both Northern and Southern California, I haven't thought through the issue from a California perspective, but clearly next door in Nevada many golf courses have been built on non traditional property - Shadow Creek just being the most prominent example.

I would expect people in the golf industry to take issue with my assessment of this being a negative. Wouldn't many argue that building golf courses in non traditional sites has been good for economic development, job creation, etc.? Isn't Las Vegas a classic case in point?

In the broadest sense, there may be a classic conflict of interest between producer and consumer perspectives. Folks in the industry - the producers - want to create more of these high end projects because it represents work, jobs and income for them. Conversely, ordinary golfers - the consumers - just want to play more not pay more. But, in certain markets - the Bay area, possibly - unfortunately you have to pay more if you want to play more.

[cary lichtenstein]

I think Shadow Creek represents a landmark in golf course design. It proved that something special could be created out of "nothingness".

We here in the Palm Beach area of Florida have really terrible sites for golf courses. It proves to me that given the right architect and budget, courses like Friar's Head, Sand Hills, etc could be developed.

Prior to Shadow Creek, I think there were more limitations in the minds of developers.

[Pete Lavallee]

Even with a massive budget no one has artificially produced a golf course as natural or appealing as Sand Hills or Friars Head. The real question is given a totally flat site is the cost to justify Fazio's massive earthmoving worth it. As an example I'll compare two courses built on flat featureless terrain. Fazio's Oak Creek in Irvine, Ca. was built on the site of a former citrus orchard. The gentle sweep of the bulldozer is very evident, each hole is self contained and the artificial creek on the signature hole is impressive but does the work done justify the minimum $95 green fee? To my thinking, although it is a pleasant course, I'm not tempted to return and try any of the shots or holes over again; especially at that price. This is what I think is meant by instant gratification: the strategy is evident imeadiately and the thrill of pulling off a great shot is just not there because the course is designed to be playable and not directly confront golfers with a unique challange, be it carry a bunker or try and make an impossible twisting double breaking putt. On the other hand Gil Hanse's Tall Grass on Long Island was built on a former sod farm. Although massive earthmoving was necessary to give the golf course some character it was done in a more minimalist fashion. There are numerous shots, chips and putts I'de love to go back and try even though I can see the rest of the golf course from any given hole. The result is far superior because it challanges the golfer instead of placating him. And all this for $40. One would think that for twice the cash the golfing experience would be twice as good, however this couldn't be further from the truth. Granted these features Fazio employs are great at selling real estate and pampering casual golfers but are, in my opinion, bad for the future of the game in the long run.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Accurate words Pete.

Quassi, you state: I think Shadow Creek represents a landmark in golf course design. It proved that something special could be created out of "nothingness".

I'm not sure about the landmark in golf design-thing.

In this case, I think of Banff, where Stanley Thompson literally moved a mountain to create that great 18 holes because it was the only way it was going to work as a golf course--the routing, which to me is a far greater acheivement given the time and technology of earthmovement. I think that it would serve greater justice to honor an effort like that instead of a golfing equivalent to Disneyland which was also built on flat featureless property.

That is what Shadow Creek is to me--Disneyland. Maybe its because I live so close (10-15 minutes) away, and have seen basically every aspect of Disneyland and Knotts Berry Farm, (which is even closer) during its evolution.

The one--1 aspect I really thought highly of at Shadow Creek is the ability to make the golfer feel a certain aura of Pine Valley or Augusta National, not all over the place, but in specific places. #5 PV at #5 SC; #12 ANGC at approach shot to #18 at SC. etc. To me, that is what is most impressive, because its done in a certain clarity because the actual scenes don't look like the holes they make you feel like your on. It's more about the scenario's. Calling that Great is more then well deserved, but calling the golf course a landmark as if it was something postive for golf is just plain wrong. The only landmark it set is that a golf architect could acheive a popularity or cult status amongst a certain type of developer who wanted to buy greatness, and was willing to pay for it.  Hearst Castle is beautiful because it too was created out of nothing, its now a museum saluting the lavish lifestyle of its former owner, as well as his penchant for excess. When I have been fortunate to be on The Old Course of St. Andrews, NGLA, Friars Head, Pine Valley, etc. I think of these paces not aimmed so much at the excess, but more for their abilties as to produce the best golf, and never did any of them require an artificial water presentation to do it.

Did you ever see that movie Grand Canyon with Kevin Klein. It's about how we all get all wrapped-up in the human element of things--us, me, I, them and we forget what it took Nature to create the Grand Canyon, or what the wind, rain and glaciers created at Friars Head; or what the seas created at Cypress Point; the bluff that overlooks the Pacific four miles North of Bandon or 10 zillion acres of Northwestern Nebraska.

It is a power that is much bigger then us, much bigger then the name Tommy Fazio, Rees Jones or Authur Hills. When a golf course designer can step up to a site like those mentioned, and figure out where the best 18 holes lay on that land and produce a Great golf course in those conditions--that is the achievement. That's what warrants the praise, and that's the difference between Great, Good, Mediocre, and Bad, and shame on us as human beings to step so low as to de-value it by thinking the Effiel Tower could be recreated in Las Vegas, as well as the Great Pyramid and Ceasers Palace--all this so close (about 225 miles or so) to the magnificent GRAND CANYON, which would obviously be something that one could build an idea or two off of, just how great Nature really is.

I also don't expect people to agree with me here because Shadow Creek holds a popularity that few feel they want to admit as being just average. Don't get me wrong. It's a wonderful experience, but the golf course to me is far from being rated as highly as some of you put it. There is just way too much containment, some things repeated, and very average putting surfaces to put it in a class similar to the GREAT ones. If you think engineering is such a wonderful thing, then how come more don't make a big deal about Cordelane, with it's floating green, or how Nelson & Haworth rebuilt a oceanside par 3 golf hole four times in succession, after it had been wiped out by monsoon after monsoon after monsoon, ultimately creating a concrete basin that has proven to finally be the ultimate way for the hole to survive--That's engineering too isn't it?

[THuckaby2]

Great stuff, Tommy.

I don't know if this was supposed to turn into yet another discussion of the merits of Shadow Creek, but what the hell, it has, so here goes, another try from perhaps a different angle.

I know you believe the design of the golf course isn't all that great, for just the reasons you state.  Fair enough, we all have our opinions and we can argue until the cows come home about this and likely never come to any agreement.

But what I'd like to try and get you to understand is this:  I can agree with every word you say, and STILL put it up there with a lot of the greats - not at the very top, but say in the top 30 - because of the ENTIRE PACKAGE.  See, to me, all the things I believe you are dismissing do "count".  So even if we have a "pretty good" golf course just taking it shot for shot, the huge positives in the golf experience provided, combined with the incredible engineering achievement, elevate it to "great" status.

If you dismiss those things, then yes, it might not qualify as a great course.  But to me dismissing those things is silly, because they do exist, in such incredible quantity at that incredible course.

I understand this may well be a fundamental difference in how we assess golf courses, and to me that is perfectly fine.  I just am trying to get you to understand more why I would call Shadow Creek "great" even if the greens aren't great, there's too much containment, whatever. Those things matter, but can be less than great and have the overall course still be great, if these perceived negatives are made up for with HUGE positives elsewhere, as I believe they would be at Shadow Creek.

BTW, I haven't been to Couer D'Alene, nor have I played the  Nelson course of which you speak.  But they too can be called great, if the other aspects of the course measure up to the engineering achievement of building them.  From what I hear, such is not the case, and thus they aren't mentioned with the greats.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

Why don't we hail the floating green at Couer D'Alene?

The boat ride to the golf course itself is much nicer than the boat ride out to that particular green.

There is a much nicer, much more beautiful downhill par 3 which gives a wonderful view of the lake.

You want something awesome? Check out the wine cellar at the hotel. But, you may not be much good for a game in the morning!