Which Tom makes more sense – Fazio or Simpson?

[John Mayhugh]

 Admittedly a provocative title, the question is inspired by a recent Golfweek article on the newly reopened Wynn casino course. In the article there’s a Tom Fazio quote that seems to say a lot about his approach:
“If you had to rank them best to least, it would be hard to that because there is no least,” Fazio said of these par 3s. “We don’t deal in anything that’s least.”
 
Contrast this mindset with what appears in Wethered & Simpson’s Design for Golf:
The reason is not far to seek. The point was emphasised by Ruskin many years ago that the demand for perfection was invariably a “sign of misunderstanding of the ends of art.” As for Architecture (in his day such a thing as the minor art of golf architecture was almost unthinkable), he even went as far as to lay down the seeming paradox that "the work of man cannot be good unless it is imperfect." The application of this principle does not imply that all imperfect golf courses are necessarily admirable; but it does suggest that in the absence, fortunately, of any existing course that confounds all criticism, some imperfect courses are amongst the most interesting and amusing to play over.

Later on, they write: The course we think of should be noble in spite of its defects, as perfection throughout would be a monument of chilly precision incapable of inspiring us or of stimulating our jaded imagination.
 
Which Tom makes the most sense to you? 
 

[Eric Smith]

Simpson far and away makes more sense to me, in this context. Seems to be more genuine or maybe more realistic?


Wasn't it Colt who used the term "least best"? I love that.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, John - those are excellent quotes you chose there. (It was too long ago now for me to remember if they were ever used in the 'arts and crafts influence' debates based on the essay by Tom MacWood - RIP).
The last quote struck a chord for me:
We can only see (and resonate with) in another what we already have in ourselves -- and since we're not 'perfect', examples (or better, facsimiles) of that perfection in architecture tend to leave us cold.

[Mark Pearce]

To be fair to Fazio, Simpson wasn't writing in an era when truth was dead and proportionality long forgotten.

[Kalen Braley]

I recall an article I read years ago with Steven Sodebergh the film maker.  I paraphrase, but he said something to the effect of he doesn't do lots of takes and  often puts imperfect shots in his movies.  He said its a more accurate reflection of what people might do in a similar real-life situation, and lends authenticity to the film, even if on a sub-conscious level.  Could be a big part of why I like so many of his movies. 

P.S.  In keeping with a movie theme, I couldn't leave this one out! 

"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from."

[Peter Pallotta]

To be fair to Fazio, Simpson wasn't writing in an era when truth was dead and proportionality long forgotten.

Or before anyone would ever dream of building a golf course in the desert.
The phrase "all bets are off" comes to mind.

[Thomas Dai]

“If you had to rank them best to least, it would be hard to that because there is no least,” Fazio said of these par 3s. “We don’t deal in anything that’s least.”

It certainly suggests something - https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67744.0.html
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

The pursuit of the perfect golf course is a constant uphill and ultimately losing battle, whether in design or perfect putting surfaces, sand bunker conditions, etc.  That hasn't stopped us, human nature being what it is.


After adjusting for the times, and marketing mantras of top end architects, leaving no weak hole remains elusive.  One example comes to mind is Pete Dye courses, like PGA West.  Every hole is shaped so spectacularly, they all tend to run together, at least visually.  Fazio is guilty, too, although I have seen him leave a few holes with pretty simplistic and less visually stunning bunkers.  So, for a visually oriented architect, and I suspect his quotes were about visuals, I am not sure he totally believes this.


That said, I do recall the opening of Dallas National, where he was proud of completely rebuilding a par 3 that just wasn't up to the standard of others, at a cost of $1 Million.  I'm pretty sure it was the 17th, where they found a previously unmarked pipeline and had to move the hole and blast rock to be any good at all.  So, it was poor planning, but in public, he always stresses it was part of his pursuit of perfection.


However, while Simpson may have been totally honest, the era of "Best Course" and "Best Site I have ever seen for a golf course" started, IMHO, in the Golden Age in America.  It certainly wasn't invented recently!

[Marty Bonnar]

Simpson far and away makes more sense to me, in this context. Seems to be more genuine or maybe more realistic?


Wasn't it Colt who used the term "least best"? I love that.

“Least bad”
About Swinley.
F.

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff,


I thought that you were going to take this in a different direction.


To fairly compare the comments of the two architects and reach valid conclusions, one would have to adjust for everything that has transpired over the past 90 years in golf course architecture, construction, grasses, maintenance, the industry, the economy/wealth, the type of golfer and his expectations, the developer/client, etc.  Also the audience being addressed by the respective architects bears consideration.


While I agree that we must not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, if we do not strive for the best given the ability and resources, we will achieve less.  Fazio sets a very high standard which puts a bullseye on his back.  From my experience playing his courses, he delivers in spades.


As to Dallas National, I was invited to the grassing ceremony and heard Fazio tell the story twice about the $1 Million change to #17.  The way he told it, and I paraphrase, in a walk of the property with his client, "John expressed concern that the somewhat flat 17th hole was too plain and he told me to fix it.  After ripping a canyon through rock for most of the length of the hole and spending another Million, he now likes it just fine."  There was never a mention about a screw up with an easement- this is the first time I heard that.  And I agree with John, I think it is a fine long par 3, allowing a run-up shot, though other than aesthetics, the canyon effect has no bearing on how it plays.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,


Not sure it's related, but there are also holes (IIRC 11 and 12) where they decided to change hole corridors after clearing, and for years you could see the mistake area.  Again, from memory, it seemed their original alignment was just going to require too much blasting and they found a better one, albeit, too late to save some nice trees.


I do agree that construction capabilities have increased, and thus raised expectations and standards.  Like you, and given that, I often have a difficult time accepting why so many on this board would accept a return to older standards.  The Golden Age guys figured out design really well for their era, and modern guys have taken the sum total of advancements, and figured it out for our era.  Of course, the basic principles were figured out a century ago,  ending the Victorian age of golf design, so the GA guys get credit for that.  I'm not sure there have been any advancements of so called "core" principles of design since WWII, just adapting them to the site and current needs.  I consider Pete Dye's style change to be outside of the core ideas of design, BTW.

[Carl Rogers]

Hasn't ANGC been all about the conquest of the "perfect"?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff -
your post brought this to mind:
if in the late 20s when the book was written there were, say (for the sake of argument), 100,000 great sites available upon which a golf course could be built, that number is obviously much much lower today - for many and varied reasons. And as that number of high-quality sites steadily dropped from the 1920s to the 2020s, the less-than-excellent sites necessarily became more and more the ones that developers & architects had left to choose from. And with that, in turn, came the increasing use of equipment/heavy machinery required to manipulate those sites so as to create good golf courses, as well as (for many architects) the ability and willingness to do precisely that, i.e. to keep working the site until, in TF's words, there is no "least".
And with all those changes over the last century, and granting the overall 'advancements' in the craft, isn't it safe to assume that what TF means by 'best' and 'no-least' is very different than what W&S would've meant if they used those words? and that their 'noble course in spite of/because of its defects' is a concept that most modern architects wouldn't side with at all, even if they understood its meaning in the context of the times in which W&S wrote it?
So yes: in short, let's agree (at least for the sake of argument) that W&S made 'as much sense' in their time and TF makes in his own time. That still leaves us, doesn't it, with the seeming fact that their fundamental goals, aims and ideals were very different than his? And when all is said and done, isn't the difference in goals/aims and ideals the most significant difference of all when it comes to the 'finished product', i.e. to the kind and the quality of golf course that remains?


 
 


   

[Tom_Doak]

Quotes like this are why I voted against reading Fazio's book for Book Club.

[John Mayhugh]

Simpson also wrote:
This is equivalent to saying that anything approaching a uniform degree of excellence is the one thing in golf that must be avoided at all cost. It smacks of standardisation, which is abhorrent when it is applied to a game with the fine versatility of golf.

I don't think this is some sort of archaic concept that Simpson would have dismissed had he had access to today's technology and methods. It seems a fundamental way of viewing design - one that still has relevance.

This is why some of us are troubled with what we perceive as too much similar work going on on the UK. I don't want to return to "older standards" as Jeff Brauer suggests. Seems we just have a fundamentally different understanding of what makes courses special.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff -
your post brought this to mind:
if in the late 20s when the book was written there were, say (for the sake of argument), 100,000 great sites available upon which a golf course could be built, that number is obviously much much lower today - for many and varied reasons. And as that number of high-quality sites steadily dropped from the 1920s to the 2020s, the less-than-excellent sites necessarily became more and more the ones that developers & architects had left to choose from. And with that, in turn, came the increasing use of equipment/heavy machinery required to manipulate those sites so as to create good golf courses, as well as (for many architects) the ability and willingness to do precisely that, i.e. to keep working the site until, in TF's words, there is no "least".
And with all those changes over the last century, and granting the overall 'advancements' in the craft, isn't it safe to assume that what TF means by 'best' and 'no-least' is very different than what W&S would've meant if they used those words? and that their 'noble course in spite of/because of its defects' is a concept that most modern architects wouldn't side with at all, even if they understood its meaning in the context of the times in which W&S wrote it?

So yes: in short, let's agree (at least for the sake of argument) that W&S made 'as much sense' in their time and TF makes in his own time. That still leaves us, doesn't it, with the seeming fact that their fundamental goals, aims and ideals were very different than his? And when all is said and done, isn't the difference in goals/aims and ideals the most significant difference of all when it comes to the 'finished product', i.e. to the kind and the quality of golf course that remains?
 

Peter,

[/size][/color]

Nice post, and a lot to unpack.  I am reminded of a Simpsons episode where they are trying to figure out the big meaning of something. After a lot of discussion, Marge says something like, "I guess it was just a whole lot of stuff that happened."

Are the Tom's really trying to build to different aims?  Or are they both simply trying to build the best course possible, given the tools at their disposal and the site they are working on?

If Simpson had an ocean front site, would he purposely avoid putting at least a few holes on the ocean (if he had a choice, I mean, Pebble did it for real estate reasons) just to make sure a few weren't as good as the others?

Lastly, I presume Simpson was fairly typical of his era.  I don't think Fazio is.  He is in 1% of the market that lets him spend anything on so-called perfection and tries to deliver.  For the rest of us,  there is not that luxury and we know not every hole will be a postcard.  That said, the two most jaw dropping statements I have heard from architects, include:

I know there will be a few bad holes on any course, so I don't worry about it.  And,

I only spend 3 days on routing, wasting any more time just isn't worth it.

(Names withheld to protect the guilty)

Both highlight what I presume is standard among modern architects - You don't get to many pokes at the pig, so make each poke count.  If it takes me 30 routings, I'll do 30 routings.  If it takes doing full plans (so I can work on theory and variety in relatively low pressure, i.e., no schedules looming, environment) I'll do full plans, even knowing that I will be changing things again in the field if the situation presents itself.

I force myself to reduce bunkering on some holes, more in the name of variety than purposely trying to build an average hole.  To me, a valley of sin green with no bunkers works well in the context of other holes with more standard type hazard arrangements, etc.

Mike Hurdzan once divided architectural eras in to the early era, "pre-architecting" and then post architecting, which could probably be subdivided into several other categories.  Simpson was a tweener for both eras.  Thinking continued to evolve, but I think the core principles remain, perhaps refined a bit by the times.  Maybe the best example is blind shots.  Ross, Mac, etc. writings show they didn't like them, but accepted them, at least on the tee shot.  IMHO, its because they had to.

Fazio (and most other moderns) writes that he would move mountains to avoid a blind shot, if it came up as part of a routing.  (On most sites, I think they would hopefully route non blind holes unless totally impossible in a few cases.)  That said, Faz course at Disney (IIRC) has a green that is half visible, half blind (sort of like the Dell Hole) and I am sure he has others, indicating that he understands the charm of an occasional (if optional) blind shot.  And, that suggests he has studied gca history more than most here would give him credit for.

Short version, Marge was right.  It's just a lot of stuff that happened, and a lot more people seriously interpreting it in their current gca work.

Cheers.

[Bernie Bell]

There's danger in quarrying stones from history to use as weapons in current battles.

[Kalen Braley]

There's danger in quarrying stones from history to use as weapons in current battles.

There are also potentially greater dangers for those who neither learn lessons from past mistakes and/or ignore sage advice and wisdom.

[Bernie Bell]

Agreed.  Age old dilemma in many fields - religion, politics, etc.  Use and abuse of history.

[Scott Warren]

Almost a decade ago, I had a current practitioner stop me when I called him a golf course architect and say he considered himself a golf course designer.


I’ve spent the subsequent years working on projects like roads, railways, schools and hospitals with a range of engineers, architects and designers of various disciplines and can understand now why a designer would view themselves as distinct from an architect and even moreso an engineer.


Even more than the professional skills they apply being different, I think there is a significant difference often in their philosophy and their view of what it is they’re building.


Some see a piece of infrastructure that will perform a specific purpose and function and deliver that in isolation. Others see the foundation for the creation of a new community to come together and the people who will use it guide the creation process.


The engineers need a firm answer for everything, a right and wrong, and the designers know some things can’t be adequately described or explained and that everyone who interacts with a thing will have a different experience.


The engineers are the 17th at Sawgrass, the designers are the Redan hole at North Berwick (the irony that a Long Island engineer tried and failed to capture what made it special is not lost on me!).


While all who work in the golf course field likely have a bit of each of designer/architect/engineer in them, I suspect Tom Simpson was almost a pure golf course designer and Tom Fazio is far more of a golf course engineer.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good posts there. And Jeff is probably in some/large degree right: stuff happens!
But I was struck by Scott's post above, very good.
I'll say it reminds me, immodestly, of another 'lens' through which to look at the topic, one that I invented myself!
The Romantic, the Logician and the Hybrid.
Simpson strikes me as the classic Romantic
Tom Fazio and Pete Dye strike me as the Logicians.
I think many architects (and most working today) are the Hybrids -- some leaning a little more in one direction, some in the other.
The ones that have success (and acclaim) seem to be the ones who are indeed Hybrids but who also 'know their particular strengths', and who can then bolster their teams by adding associates whose strengths lie/lean towards the other end of the spectrum.
P   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


You are correct.  In this field, there are many left brainers and right brainers, which affects how they solve problems. (or inadvertently create them, LOL)  I think Ron Whitten did an article decades ago assigning left and right qualities to various practicing architects.


The very nature of the job requires a hybrid nature of thinking, and i

t's what makes if fascinating to me, along with the rough split of desk time vs. time out in the field.

Yes, it's rare to find a true 50-50 split.  Of course, that's what drove many partnerships, like Langford and Moreau combining to provide both design and engineering perspective, or CBM and Raynor, etc.  And to a lesser degree, less heralded staffing decisions at many firms

[Tom_Doak]

Almost a decade ago, I had a current practitioner stop me when I called him a golf course architect and say he considered himself a golf course designer.


- - -

While all who work in the golf course field likely have a bit of each of designer/architect/engineer in them, I suspect Tom Simpson was almost a pure golf course designer and Tom Fazio is far more of a golf course engineer.

Pete Dye used to make this distinction all the time -- he insisted on calling himself a designer -- but only because one of Alice's relatives told him that calling himself an architect would open him up to more liability.


Personally, I don't see the difference, and I don't care what you call me.  I know I've got to wear both hats.


You are right, though, that Tom Fazio is more of an engineer.  He wants to rebuild everything to make it just right, and he is sure he can make it better that way.  Tom Simpson could not have sat through dinner with Tom Fazio, they are polar opposites.


Whenever I look back at Simpson's book, it reminds me that he seems to be the patron saint of minimalism.

[Tim Gallant]

Contrast this mindset with what appears in Wethered & Simpson’s Design for Golf:
The reason is not far to seek. The point was emphasised by Ruskin many years ago that the demand for perfection was invariably a “sign of misunderstanding of the ends of art.” As for Architecture (in his day such a thing as the minor art of golf architecture was almost unthinkable), he even went as far as to lay down the seeming paradox that "the work of man cannot be good unless it is imperfect." The application of this principle does not imply that all imperfect golf courses are necessarily admirable; but it does suggest that in the absence, fortunately, of any existing course that confounds all criticism, some imperfect courses are amongst the most interesting and amusing to play over.

Later on, they write: The course we think of should be noble in spite of its defects, as perfection throughout would be a monument of chilly precision incapable of inspiring us or of stimulating our jaded imagination.
 
Which Tom makes the most sense to you?

John,


Lovely quote, and thanks for posting.


I've given the thread some thought, and (of course) the Simpson quote makes more sense to me. That said, who am I to tell Mr. Fazio how he should design one of his original golf courses. As they say, it would be boring if all courses were the same, and while his courses aren't necessarily my cup of tea, I admire that he has a philosophy, and has more or less stuck to that.


What I disagree with is when you see a Simpson course go under the knife because some architect thinks they can make a hole(s) better, with little regard to the original intent of the architect. I have no doubt that in isolation, there are a lot of holes on classic courses that, from a technical, strategic perspective, could be made better. But to alter these holes is to fly in direct contrast with what the original designer intended, thus altering the very fabric of the golf course.


Just like I wouldn't like to see Coore & Crenshaw make a RTJ original course more strategic, I can't understand how we allow this pursuit of perfection to alter the identity and philosophy of classic courses.

[jeffwarne]

Hasn't ANGC been all about the conquest of the "perfect"?

Absolutely and has slowly been getting more "leastly" for years.