[Tommy Williamsen]

      It seems that on this site most denigrate Fazio while elevate TD and CC. I thought it might be interesting to list some of their best work.
When I rank my personal favorites of the three, I come up with this list. I have included more Fazio courses because he has designed so many. I have played about thirty-five of his courses.

Favorite Fazio designs I’ve played
Shadow Creek
Congaree
The Quarry at La Quinta
Shady Canyon
World Woods Golf Club – Pine Barrens 
Black Diamond Ranch Golf & Country Club – Quarry Course
Caves Valley Golf Club (1991)
Spring Hill Golf Club (1999) 
Hudson National Golf Club
Galloway National Golf Club
Trump National Golf Club Old
Diamond Creek Golf Club
Wade Hampton Golf Club

I’ve played ten of TD’s course, including two NLE. Have not been to Bandon or Cabots.
 Favorite Doak designs I’ve played
Ballyneal
 Streamsong
 Lost Dunes
 Sebonack
 Stone Eagle
 Stonewall Old

I’ve played nine of CC’s courses.
Favorite Coore/Crenshaw designs I’ve played.  Have not been to Bandon or Friar’s Head.

Colorado Golf Club
The Dormie Club
Hidden Creek Golf Club
Sand Hills Golf Club
Streamsong Resort

The body of work for all three is pretty impressive. I’d be hard pressed to say that the best of one is better than the other two. Where TD and CC have it over most other architects is in their worst work. There are so many Fazio courses that just are average. I’ve played nine of his courses in the Hilton Head area. None are dreadful but there are none I want to play again.

Just one further observation.
Complain all they want, architects do take advantage of rankings. The following was lifted from Tom’s Renaissance Golf website
2018 Golf Digest Top 200 Courses World Ranking   
designed 8 courses and consulted on another 17 tracks in the ranking.  22% of the top 50 courses on the list were designed, restored, or rebuilt by Renaissance Golf Design.  We don't chase these awards but are humbled to be recognized.


 

[A.G._Crockett]

It's a hard comparison to make, isn't it?  When you do more courses (MANY more courses!) like Fazio has, you will have a lot of successes with an impressive "best of" list, but you are also likely to have more work about which there are questions.  And so it is with Fazio. 

There was a time when I joined in on the Fazio bashing that can break out here; I've softened at least somewhat.  I still find a lot of what he does with bunkers to be objectionable, but I've also played a number of his courses that I like pretty well.

Since I mentioned bunkering, two stories, one familiar to many here, one not. 

1. When Pinehurst #4 reopens this fall, the primary work that will have been done, beyond regrassing the greens, is the removal of 140 Fazio bunkers.  Like many here, I think I see adding 140 bunkers to 18 holes of Ross as painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

2. In an interclub match this past Sunday at Hasentree in Wake Forest, NC, which is a Fazio "signature" that I like a lot, I watched one of my opponents, who played college golf and is still just excellent, take three to get out out of a fairway bunker and make double on the first hole.  That hole is a 428 yd. dogleg par 4 and the #1 handicap hole; he played the rest of the round 2 over and shot 75.  (And waxed us!)

I don't believe that years down the road we will EVER see anybody have to remove a significant number of bunkers from work that Doak or C&C did, nor do I believe that either of those would defend a green with an absurdly deep bunker almost 200 yards out.  And that may be the difference in the three.

Nolan Ryan struck out 2500 more batters than did Greg Maddux, which is impressive.  Of course, Ryan also walked 1800 more batters than Maddux did.  You take the good with the bad; more volume means more of both.

[Rick Lane]

I don't believe that years down the road we will EVER see anybody have to remove a significant number of bunkers from work that Doak or C&C did, nor do I believe that either of those would defend a green with an absurdly deep bunker almost 200 yards out.  And that may be the difference in the three.

I love Wee Burn.   But Fazio did just what you describe with his work there.   I'm 190 out in a fairway bunker with such a steep face that its a wedge.   I think that's just silly.   Much more fun to give the player a shot to hit a long bunker shot, its part of the game? 

[Edward Glidewell]

The only C&C/Doak course I've played is Dormie Club. I think it's better than any of the Fazio courses I've played, but that's not a knock on Fazio; I've never played a BAD Tom Fazio course. I'd happily return to play any of them, and that alone is a good sign. He may not be as good as Doak or C&C, but he's still a very good architect who has built numerous excellent courses.

[John Kavanaugh]

The only C&C/Doak course I've played is Dormie Club. I think it's better than any of the Fazio courses I've played, but that's not a knock on Fazio; I've never played a BAD Tom Fazio course. I'd happily return to play any of them, and that alone is a good sign. He may not be as good as Doak or C&C, but he's still a very good architect who has built numerous excellent courses.

I find that failing to seek out an architect's work is a bigger knock than criticizing the courses you have seen.

[Edward Glidewell]

The only C&C/Doak course I've played is Dormie Club. I think it's better than any of the Fazio courses I've played, but that's not a knock on Fazio; I've never played a BAD Tom Fazio course. I'd happily return to play any of them, and that alone is a good sign. He may not be as good as Doak or C&C, but he's still a very good architect who has built numerous excellent courses.

I find that failing to seek out an architect's work is a bigger knock than criticizing the courses you have seen.

Yes, because it's so easy to play Doak and C&C courses, especially for someone who lives in the southeast. Hopefully I'll make it to Streamsong at some point and I may have a chance to play Cuscowilla sometime soon (or Heathlands, I suppose), but basically all of the rest of their work is out of the realm of possibility for me at the moment.

[Peter Pallotta]

Some simple questions, and sincere ones, for any of you who have played 100s of courses and courses by various designers:

In general, do Doak and C&C and Hanse create better *fields of play* than do Fazio and Nicklaus?

Do the former understand & create golf strategies and angles and choices and playability (for a range of golfers) and interest and challenge and fun *better* than the latter do?

Setting aside aesthetics for the moment, do *their* resort courses serve the intended/target audience in some markedly different way than those by Fazio and Nicklaus? Do *their* private-member courses serve the members in some markedly different way than the privates that Fazio and Nicklaus build?

If "yes" is the answer, what the heck are we talking about and wasting our time discussing? I mean, then it should be obvious:  the former are today's *best* architects and the latter are not. 

If "no" is the answer, what the heck are we talking about and wasting our time discussing -- picayune personal preferences masquerading as expert insight into the art & craft of design?

[Wade Whitehead]

I think it's also important to consider what some clients asked these architects to do.

Fazio has been hired to do "pretty" because he does it well.  Many of his clients wouldn't have wanted a minimalist design, even if he'd asked.

All of them have made unique and meaningful contributions and all can be credited with designs superior to anything else that could have been done on their particular properties.

WW

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't believe that years down the road we will EVER see anybody have to remove a significant number of bunkers from work that Doak or C&C did, nor do I believe that either of those would defend a green with an absurdly deep bunker almost 200 yards out.  And that may be the difference in the three.

I love Wee Burn.   But Fazio did just what you describe with his work there.   I'm 190 out in a fairway bunker with such a steep face that its a wedge.   I think that's just silly.   Much more fun to give the player a shot to hit a long bunker shot, its part of the game?

I disagree with this sentiment. Bunkers should come in all shapes and sizes with regards to penalty, including full lost shots in the fairway.

[Carl Rogers]

Wade & et al,


I would add that the context and potentials of each site are unique and may have many more potentials and constraints than others.


Also, ............. So much of the trio's work is over seas and are private that access & travel is problematic.

[A.G._Crockett]

I don't believe that years down the road we will EVER see anybody have to remove a significant number of bunkers from work that Doak or C&C did, nor do I believe that either of those would defend a green with an absurdly deep bunker almost 200 yards out.  And that may be the difference in the three.

I love Wee Burn.   But Fazio did just what you describe with his work there.   I'm 190 out in a fairway bunker with such a steep face that its a wedge.   I think that's just silly.   Much more fun to give the player a shot to hit a long bunker shot, its part of the game?

I disagree with this sentiment. Bunkers should come in all shapes and sizes with regards to penalty, including full lost shots in the fairway.

Ally,
You are, of course, free to disagree with anything and everything that I say.  And fwiw, I agree with you that there can be full shot penalty fairway bunkers that are great features.

For clarity, let me say this: I find too many, and maybe the majority, of Fazio's fairway bunkers to be well-placed, but far too severe.  A good way for a good player to play a competitive round on a Fazio course is simply to decide to avoid fairway bunkers at ALL costs.  While avoiding a particular fairway bunker on a particular golf course might be something we agree on, avoiding ALL fairway bunkers because they are ALL full shot penalties is not something I consider to be good GCA.  Your mileage may vary...

I'll go a step farther with this, and stipulate that I'm painting with a broad brush; there are of course Fazio fairway bunkers that allow recovery shots, and I'm sure there are Doak and C&C fairway bunkers that do not.  But in general, I find the repetitive nature of Fazio fairway bunkers tiresome in a way this isn't true of not only Doak and C&C but any other GCA that I can think of.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't believe that years down the road we will EVER see anybody have to remove a significant number of bunkers from work that Doak or C&C did, nor do I believe that either of those would defend a green with an absurdly deep bunker almost 200 yards out.  And that may be the difference in the three.

I love Wee Burn.   But Fazio did just what you describe with his work there.   I'm 190 out in a fairway bunker with such a steep face that its a wedge.   I think that's just silly.   Much more fun to give the player a shot to hit a long bunker shot, its part of the game?

I disagree with this sentiment. Bunkers should come in all shapes and sizes with regards to penalty, including full lost shots in the fairway.

Ally,
You are, of course, free to disagree with anything and everything that I say.  And fwiw, I agree with you that there can be full shot penalty fairway bunkers that are great features.

For clarity, let me say this: I find too many, and maybe the majority, of Fazio's fairway bunkers to be well-placed, but far too severe.  A good way for a good player to play a competitive round on a Fazio course is simply to decide to avoid fairway bunkers at ALL costs.  While avoiding a particular fairway bunker on a particular golf course might be something we agree on, avoiding ALL fairway bunkers because they are ALL full shot penalties is not something I consider to be good GCA.  Your mileage may vary...

I'll go a step farther with this, and stipulate that I'm painting with a broad brush; there are of course Fazio fairway bunkers that allow recovery shots, and I'm sure there are Doak and C&C fairway bunkers that do not.  But in general, I find the repetitive nature of Fazio fairway bunkers tiresome in a way this isn't true of not only Doak and C&C but any other GCA that I can think of.

Makes sense, A.G.

[Edward Glidewell]

For clarity, let me say this: I find too many, and maybe the majority, of Fazio's fairway bunkers to be well-placed, but far too severe.  A good way for a good player to play a competitive round on a Fazio course is simply to decide to avoid fairway bunkers at ALL costs.  While avoiding a particular fairway bunker on a particular golf course might be something we agree on, avoiding ALL fairway bunkers because they are ALL full shot penalties is not something I consider to be good GCA.  Your mileage may vary...

I'll go a step farther with this, and stipulate that I'm painting with a broad brush; there are of course Fazio fairway bunkers that allow recovery shots, and I'm sure there are Doak and C&C fairway bunkers that do not.  But in general, I find the repetitive nature of Fazio fairway bunkers tiresome in a way this isn't true of not only Doak and C&C but any other GCA that I can think of.

This is really interesting to me, because I don't remember ever being in a Fazio fairway bunker that was overly difficult (and I'm a 15, so it's not like I'm an elite player).


I'm not saying you're wrong; it's just not something I've noticed/experienced in the Fazio courses I've played.

[Rick Lane]

I was particularly talking about Wee Burn.  I have played lots of other Fazio originals and redesigns where that was not true.  Belfair, for instance, is more of a mix, as Ally mentions.  Some bunkers playable, some not so much. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:


My "body of work" is important to me; I treasure the opportunities to do different things, and I take every project we do very seriously or I don't do them at all.


However I don't ever compare my body of work to other architects' and try to decide who's better.  We may compete with one another for jobs, but once you have a job you are just trying to build the best course you can on that land.  It doesn't matter what someone else is doing down the road.


The other problem with comparing architects is that it leads to broad generalizations- like Rick taking Wee Burn as a proxy for Tom Fazio's 200 designs.  It would piss me off if someone did that with one of my courses, and I haven't even built 20% as many as Tom Fazio has.


For 15 years I never put anything about rankings on our web site.  My newest employee has recently updated it, and he is much more aggressive about promoting our work than I am.  Honestly, it still gives me the creeps a bit.  But as someone said to me long ago, "if you've done it, it ain't bragging."


P.S.  you've seen less than half of my best courses, but some of the others are pretty far away.

[corey miller]

I have only played four of the courses Tom listed that he has played.

Sand Hills
Sebonack
Hidden Creek
Hudson National

There that was easy.....   It would help Tom if you at least went through and ranked the once you have played? 


I have played a lot of Fazio and think his work is almost exclusively 5-7....Please let me know what is above that?  I do know what I am getting at a minimum.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy:


My "body of work" is important to me; I treasure the opportunities to do different things, and I take every project we do very seriously or I don't do them at all.


However I don't ever compare my body of work to other architects' and try to decide who's better.  We may compete with one another for jobs, but once you have a job you are just trying to build the best course you can on that land.  It doesn't matter what someone else is doing down the road.

Tom I wasn't so much comparing courses. Tom F gets nailed on this site. I was just trying to say that the body of work that the three of you have done is good. When you compare best to best all three of you have done really good work.

[Sean_A]

I don't believe that years down the road we will EVER see anybody have to remove a significant number of bunkers from work that Doak or C&C did, nor do I believe that either of those would defend a green with an absurdly deep bunker almost 200 yards out.  And that may be the difference in the three.

I love Wee Burn.   But Fazio did just what you describe with his work there.   I'm 190 out in a fairway bunker with such a steep face that its a wedge.   I think that's just silly.   Much more fun to give the player a shot to hit a long bunker shot, its part of the game?

I disagree with this sentiment. Bunkers should come in all shapes and sizes with regards to penalty, including full lost shots in the fairway.

I would go even further and say bunkers should be harsh.  What is the point in going through the effort to create and mantain a weak hazard?  The real issue is about the balance of hazard features. If bunkers are in balance with other features, then why on earth should a golfer expect a shot at the green?  If a place is littered with bunkers why on earth did the archie create that mess?  Most of the best courses I know don't leave much opportunity for success from fairway bunkers. 


Ciao

[Rob Rigg]

Most owners and clubs are predisposed to a particular vision for their course (which often doesn't align with the majority POV on this site!) 

For example, a group of investors purchased a course overseas on a stunning site that they wanted to renovate. TD and TF, amongst others, were brought in to evaluate and create a proposal and the lead investor was taken by TF's "bold" (and expensive) vision for the course, which was fairly drastically altered, to little GCA fanfare, but the investors dig it.

An established club in the States with a pretty cool classic course and a serious tree problem brought in many top architects, including TF & CC, who each presented their vision. Fazio's was bold and expensive (he literally wanted to blow up the course and create a new one), but the club went in the opposite direction and hired an architect with a solid track record of restoring golden age gems. The members definitely got what they wanted.

What I have found interesting about Fazio courses, corroborated by feedback from members at those clubs, is that praise is often focused as much, or more, on the external as the internal. Meaning that TF has a well deserved reputation for making the most of the environment around the course - mountains, city views, panoramas, etc. - as much as maximizing the interest of the actual course design itself. Normally, eye candy factor is high internally and externally which is something that many golfers get stoked about. The large budgets used for many of Fazio's designs are matched with immaculate maintenance which is another element that many golfers (and owners) correlate to enjoyable play and will happily pay up for.

Unfortunately, I think this strategy intrinsically leads to a weaker body of work because it forces compromise in the routing and design of the course for reasons that do not necessarily enhance the playing experience.

I am grateful for Mike Keiser and similar property owners who decided to go in a different direction because C&C and Doak, amongst others, tend to create modern designs that focus on enjoyment of the game itself while trying to also maximize the internal and external aesthetics of the venue.   

[Peter Pallotta]

It's interesting: maybe because he wrote the Confidential Guide, Tom D rarely gets described as a nice guy. But I think he is. As his post here confirms (yet again), he limits himself to critiquing and rating *golf courses* -- not golf architects. That's partly, I assume, because he realizes that many factors, some outside the architect's control, are involved in determining what's ultimately on the ground -- and so he judges *that* instead of people's talent or motives. But I do wonder why so few well travelled golfers can't/won't come out and simply rate the (living/current) architects *as* architects. It's as if we all listed our 10 best books while making no claims whatsoever about our 10 best writers. Not that I would necessarily take your pick as definitive or true/factual -- but I still think it of value/interest to read a direct and forthright post on your *best architects* instead of the usual meta-level and stylistic-type analysis of courses. I have to assume that well-travelled, well-read and experienced posters know/think they know which architects do their jobs best. It would be good to read those views, unfettered by all manner of qualifiers and caveats.   


 

[Jon Wiggett]

I don't believe that years down the road we will EVER see anybody have to remove a significant number of bunkers from work that Doak or C&C did, nor do I believe that either of those would defend a green with an absurdly deep bunker almost 200 yards out.  And that may be the difference in the three.

I love Wee Burn.   But Fazio did just what you describe with his work there.   I'm 190 out in a fairway bunker with such a steep face that its a wedge.   I think that's just silly.   Much more fun to give the player a shot to hit a long bunker shot, its part of the game?

I disagree with this sentiment. Bunkers should come in all shapes and sizes with regards to penalty, including full lost shots in the fairway.

Ally,
You are, of course, free to disagree with anything and everything that I say.  And fwiw, I agree with you that there can be full shot penalty fairway bunkers that are great features.

For clarity, let me say this: I find too many, and maybe the majority, of Fazio's fairway bunkers to be well-placed, but far too severe.  A good way for a good player to play a competitive round on a Fazio course is simply to decide to avoid fairway bunkers at ALL costs.  While avoiding a particular fairway bunker on a particular golf course might be something we agree on, avoiding ALL fairway bunkers because they are ALL full shot penalties is not something I consider to be good GCA.  Your mileage may vary...

I'll go a step farther with this, and stipulate that I'm painting with a broad brush; there are of course Fazio fairway bunkers that allow recovery shots, and I'm sure there are Doak and C&C fairway bunkers that do not.  But in general, I find the repetitive nature of Fazio fairway bunkers tiresome in a way this isn't true of not only Doak and C&C but any other GCA that I can think of.

Makes sense, A.G.

No Ally it does not make sense. Is not what AG is railing against essentially one of the basic design features of TOC?


There is not a fairway bunker on TOC that you would want to end up in and the only one I can recall where any distance is possible from it Hells if you are far enough back. But it not only works at TOC but is in fact one of it's fundamental design strengths because traditionally the difficulty was the contouring and the bunkers but not the rough. At TOC you had acres of short stuff to play with so if you hit a bunker then it was your own fault and the penalty needs to be by definition severe. I suspect with the Fazio case it is more the fact there is not the room around the bunker to keep out of trouble. It is all about the context in which the bunker is placed.


I think AG has looked at the situation and drawn the wrong conclusion (no offence intended AG)


Jon

[Ally Mcintosh]

It makes sense to me that hazards should provide a mix of penalties. I think they should be on average more severe than A.G. does but I’m done with dissing other people’s opinions all the time when they’ve been reasonably thought out...

[Jon Wiggett]

Ally,


I was not dissing anyone's opinion I was just pointing out the fact that if the problem really was that all Fazio's bunkers were too deep then how come TOC is such a course where you can rarely use more than a wedge out of the fairway bunkers but is also held up as a GCA masterpiece?  AG's assertion of 'avoiding all fairway bunkers at all costs' as being bad GCA is therefore serious flawed when looking at it in relation to TOC where this is exactly the correct strategy. That I challenged this is IMO what this group is all about and should you not agree with my conclusions then please do suggest why and what in your opinion is the correct answer.


I would suggest the real problem AG has with Fazio's bunkers is they are too severe for the lack of easy options to avoid them. If I have 40 yards left and right of the bunker then I can have no quibbles about it being severe in nature. If however I have only 5 yards either side it would be OTT to have a severe hazard. The hazard should reflect the severity of its surroundings or sit in context with the situation. I agree there should be variety with the hazards though am not sure if this is what you mean by 'a mix of penalties'.


Jon

[Thomas Dai]

Not going to comment on the work of the names highlighted but as to bunkers, they're supposed to be a hazard, they should be difficult to get the ball out of. Avoid them or take the consequences.
atb

[SL_Solow]

A few brief observations.  First, in the interest of accuracy, Tom Doak did not design either of the courses at Cabot while Ben & Bill built the Cliffs.  Second, I respectfully suggest that the usual argument that architect x built course y in the way he/she did because he/she was giving the owner what the owner wanted should be retired.  in the end, the architect is evaluated by what is in the ground.  Architects have a choice as to what they are willing to do for an owner.  In my profession, certain lawyers develop reputations for filing cases or taking positions that skirt ethical lines.  Oft times I hear excuses that the clients require those positions.  But somehow certain lawyers always end up with those clients.  I submit it is because it becomes known that the lawyer's standards allow him/her to take those positions while others will not.  Similarly, some architects are heavily involved in housing development projects while others build "core" courses on an almost exclusive basis.  Is that because they cannot build a housing development course or because they choose not to do so?  In the end, the consumer doesn't know but we can judge what is built.


That said, all 3 are talented.  As architecture is a matter of taste, we can all make our judgments regarding individual courses and/or bodies of work.  Certainly the opportunities each receives impacts the end product.  But we should judge based on the quality of the work without significant allowance for the preferences of the owner.  We all make compromises in order to achieve goals but sometimes the compromises we make become an integral part of the work itself.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()