Fazio says distance increase is good for golf

[Kevin_Keeley]

"Fazio says technology, longer courses aren't bad for golf"

by Jim Wilson, Golf Press Association

Oddly enough, Tom Fazio, one of the world's best -- and most active -- golf course architects, doesn't see the increased yardages players are achieving as such a big problem.

"I personally, I'm not for that," Fazio said of taking some of the steam out of balls. "I don't know anything that goes backwards. If you look at golf in the last 100 years and you look at the scores from the U.S. Opens and you look at when the ball changed, all we've done is go forward. Why shouldn't the scores be lower?

"I think it's been exciting for golf. I think the public loves it. I think the public coming out here and watching those players on that practice tee and hitting those golf balls 280, 300 yards in the air, I think it's great for golf."

Fazio is designing the Sunrise Course at Mirasol, which will play host to the Honda Classic for at least the next three years. The new course will measure between 7,400-7,500 yards, about 350 yards or so longer than the Sunset Course, which yielded 2,082 birdies and 55 eagles last week.

The increased distances do raise one issue for him, Fazio said.

"The problem becomes how do we handle the old golf courses. How do we balance this technology of today's players and how does it fit into the old style golf courses? That's a big question. I don't have the answer to that."

In the meantime, Fazio favors the tough pin placements the Tour has used this season.

"We are starting to see this because the players are playing so well that in order to set up the golf course to give today's Tour players a real challenge, you need to put those pins in strong places. And the strong places are against bunkers, against the edges, so you really give them a challenge."

That, naturally, puts an emphasis on accuracy, both on the drive, but particularly on the second shot.

One of the great second-shot courses, Fazio said, is Pinehurst No. 2, the site of the 1999 U.S. Open and the 2005 Open.

"If you stand on those golf tees, you look at those golf holes and, gosh, that looks like an easy golf hole. You stand there and there's a bunker here, a bunker there, some trees way out of play and you tee it up, and gosh, it looks easy. You get to the first hole, just made a bogey. You get to the next hole, thought you hit a good shot to the green, hit on the green and rolled off to the edge and you have to chip back, again based on the placement. It's pin placements and it's angles to get to those spots; that's really the classic part of that golf course."

[Tim_Weiman]

I am profoundly disappointed to hear Tom Fazio take this position. He is only adding fuel to the golf technology arms race.

The pursuit of absolute length and an ever larger playing field does nothing but add to the costs of playing golf. Leading industry figures should be taking a more progressive point of view.

When it comes to length, the essence of the game is relative length, the balance between player skill, equipment technology and the challenges presented by the golf course.

The critical thing is the BALANCE. Distorting one factor only serves to force an adjustment. As soon as this "adjustment" is made someone will be encouraged to tamper again and introduce another distortion, in this case an even longer ball making the last round of adjustments "obsolete".

We don't need a longer ball. We don't need longer golf courses. We don't need to continue a senseless golf technology arms race that only makes the game more expensive.

Continuing down this road is hardly a step forward.

[Derek_L]

Talk about increasing the length of courses making the game more expensive.  One of these days a course will require a minimum of 500 acres and will cost $500/ round.  Speaking of length being good for the game, yes it is nice to utilize every club in the bag but what about the actual skill of the game. What about the way the game was meant to play.  Hell, when courses get to a minimum of 7000 yds it forces hacks like to me to take a minimum of 7's or 8's for a par 5.  I wonder what I will shoot on an 800 yd par 5 or 6 for that matter.

Derek

[Andrew_Roberts]

Derek I so agree with you that this technology race is only making golf more expensive.  A lot of golfers and I mean a lot of golfers rate a course on how it sets up to the pro game of hit it long.  This credibility comes from length.  A lot of people believe that if a course is so and so yards that it can challenge the pros. And you and I know that is not true.  And owners are pressured to meet up with golfers expectations and that means making golf courses longer with larger pieces of land and higher green fees because there is more grass that needs to be cut.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

What difference does it make when you have unlimited budgets, have basically made the business impossible for others to succeed at because it doesn't have the Fazio name and budget, and then ultimately--just plain boring and stupid golf that looks pretty.

If this isn't sealing the Dumb Blond Award for Stupid Statements of 2003.............

The man is a contradiction of terms. One of his schooled associates should try to explain to him what a stupid statement this is...Or has his ego really gotten that big?

[Tim_Weiman]

Redanman:

I'm disappointed but not surprised. The best minds in the golf architecture industry should not be put towards making the game more expensive. They should be working towards the opposite objective.

Part of Fazio's mistake is to focus on tournament players, the elite group that can hit the ball 300 yards in the air. They are not the game. The "game" is about the millions of people who play it. They want to play more not pay more. I was delighted during my recent trip to Ireland to be reminded how the Irish "get" this, but people here seem to be taken in by all the silly advertising from the likes of Titleist & Co.

What are we to believe? That Fazio is not one of those architects that Titleist makes fun of?

Making the playing field bigger is not a step forward. It adds to costs but nothing to the fundamentals of the game of golf.

We need people to understand the difference between relative length and absolute length. Relative length is about testing player skill. It s about rewarding the player who can hit the ball further. Absolute length is just about making things longer and bigger. It just takes money out of golfer's pockets.

[A_Clay_Man]

Ironically the boys ate up Mirasol while in the same period they couldn't get to 20 under on the Riv or at Pebble.

I do however agree that going backwards is just not the way things are done and going low should be more and more of a challenge. I just don't think increasing length is absolutely neccesary. Which puts the onus on the archie to create challenge thru creative design. I am sure that TF is not the man to do that.
Is it a coincidence that Doak kind of sounds like Roark?

[Dan Kelly]

"The problem becomes how do we handle the old golf courses. How do we balance this technology of today's players and how does it fit into the old style golf courses? That's a big question. I don't have the answer to that."

Exactly, Mr. Fazio.

Here's the answer to that: Competition Ball.

Then leave the old courses alone.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

"The problem becomes how do we handle the old golf courses. How do we balance this technology of today's players and how does it fit into the old style golf courses? That's a big question. I don't have the answer to that."

Is that the pitch he uses to land plum restoration jobs?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy Naccarato:

I don’t favor personalizing this issue with reference to Tom Fazio’s “ego”. The issues aren’t personal. From conversation with people like Tom Marzolf, I’m quite sure the Fazio organization would say that when they build or revise golf courses they do so in response to the desires of their clients. Fair enough.

The important point here is to educate people on how pointless the golf technology arms race is. That’s not easy. Equipment manufacturers will always claim they are just building better products and allowing more people to enjoy the game. In turn, golf architects and their sponsors will just claim that they are simply responding to “improvements in technology” or “restoring shot values”.

Such arguments are usually effective. Fazio’s suggestion that the golf technology arms race is really a step “forward” is a classic example. It all sounds very reasonable.

Rather than personally attack Tom Fazio or any other architect, we need to do a better job articulating how pointless the golf technology arms race is. We need to do a better job explaining the essence of the game. We need to get more people to understand that an endless cycle of making equipment longer and the playing field bigger amounts to nothing more than throwing money away.

Wouldn’t it be great if the Fazio organization created a 6,800 yard course that pros found challenging and the average guy could play?  Wouldn’t it be great if their considerable talents were put towards building a course showing the industry and the golfing public a better way?

Redanman:

My apologies. I wasn't aware of your views on this subject.


Dan Kelly:

I really wish Fazio would join Jack Nicklaus on this subject. The competition ball would eliminate any problem playing tournaments on classic courses and the need to build golf courses more than 7,000 yards.

I think the world of Nicklaus for taking this position and am sad Fazio doesn't take an equally progressive stance.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tim- I think the market will decide what is right. For all those that are "wasting money" it won't take long to remedy that situation. It appears to be written on the wall right now with shrinking numbers. So, those that do pursue ventures in the future better know what it is they want to be. A profit center or a golf course. Likely, Not both for quite some time. Of course there are exceptions to an industry that fits few models, if any.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

If length is so good for golf, why is the industry struggling.  Rounds are down.  Clubs are closing. And many of our great courses are obsolete.  I no longer watch much golf on TV.  

I would suggest that Mr. Fazio and others in the industry have lost touch with the greater golf market.

[John_McMillan]

Without desiring the current state of affairs, I think there is a way in which Fazio's comments can be read as accurate.  If one defines "good for golf" as increasing the base of players, there has certainly been a boom in the Tigers Woods era to a new demographic of golfers.  Though I haven't done any marketing studies, my guess would be that this demographic is also very enamored by options for game improvement through technology - and so I think the run away technology came at the right time to interact with the new demographic of players coming to golf.  Whether or not this is good for golf as a whole is open to debate, but the contrary position certainly has to involve an element of not opening the game to as many players.  

[Dan Kelly]

... the contrary position certainly has to involve an element of not opening the game to as many players.  

Please explain what you mean here. I'm baffled.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim, I take it extremely personal, thus am more then willing to give it back just as personally. As a purist, he is ruining my world the same way as someone who pollutes the earth and then profits from it. Simple as that. His statements read of contradictory arrogance, and he is doing more to harm the game with statements as such, which as you know,will do more unrevokable harm, all in the anme of making a big buck.

Why can't this man just simply design his golf courses and enjoy that success? Why does he have to make it a point to make ignorant statements like this which further the cause of $45,000,000 golf courses, thus making it impossible for lending institutions to understand that anything under $10,000,000 is more then feasable amount to build.

All of you golf course architects out there that are reading this and are hungry for work in this recession of sorts--back me up on this. Please tell me that you feel statements like this eventually take their toll on the business. Do it under a psuedo if you have to!

How can any ASGCA member architects take this without saying a word? Doesn't this go against everything you have been adamantly against? Isn't Tom Fazio a member of the ASGCA? Shouldn't you kick him out or fine him or something?

[John_McMillan]

Dan -

There are features of the game of golf which appeal more to the "new demographic," and features which appeal more to traditionalists.  If you remove, or scale back, some of the features which appeal to the new demographic, you will get less of them involved in golf.  

[Jeff_Lewis]

Right on Tommy! These sorts of statements are completely irresponsible and are quite damaging.

[A_Clay_Man]

They are self-serving to TF.

 How about that jouirnalistic integrity calling him world's best.

Whatever happened to the 5 W's?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

I understand your feelings, but prefer that we focus on issues rather than making personal attacks.

Fazio suggests that adding length is somehow good for the game of golf. As evidence he cites fans who like to see professional level players bomb away. I'm not even sure if that is true. But, more troubling is what this suggestion obscures: the cost of the golf technology arms race.

I'd rather see more golfers enjoy affordable golf than developments which do nothing but add to the cost of playing.

We need to expose the model that suggests an ever larger playing field is "progress". It is nothing of the kind.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim, I'm sorry, But I'm beyond the "lets show em'" attitude. Come on out to Riviera and I can show you what I mean. We'll stop by Bel Air along the way, and see if it measures up to the standards of good taste.

Nope, I think we are way beyond that. I think this whole thing needs to be brought to light. To expose this arrogance. To show the world that golf is more then a name, player or product.

Once again, I ask the ASGCA, any members, to post their thoughts on what statements like these, which are directly against all that have campaigned for in recent years from Remodel U to any current or past Presidents statements, (and I'm speaking of Damain Passcuzo's very intelligent* take on what the golf ball is doing to the game and the business.) as well as the Society's efforts to campaign this cause. How can a fellow member get away with making these kinds of statements? Please don't stand there like sheep, ATTACK this question! And don't hold back either!

*And if Damian happens to be reading, I mean this with all due meaning.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

I'm just more interested in HOW we can shed light on this issue.

So many people seem to think the golf technology arms race is a natural evolution. Thus, we have a rough road ahead to bring any sanity to the situation. I don't want our arguments to be dismissed as nothing more than "Fazio bashing".

[Tommy_Naccarato]

HOW:

(My thoughts of a plan of ATTACK)

1-The USGA, realizing that this is the perfect place to throw there hat in the ring and regain the faith of it members, former members, and future members, REBUKES Fazio's article in its entirety, citing that statements such as these are negative to the growth of the game and do nothing but add to the cost.

2-The ASGCA, realzing that this is a perfect place to follow, throw their hat into the ring, fining Fazio for such statements that are against anything and everthing the ASGCA stands for.

3-Fazio's reaction is to not pay the fine, quit the ASGCA, which he thinks he doesn't need anyway because:
     a.)It serves him no purpose.
     b.)He doesn't even really attend the meetings, and if he does, he did, he would be in and out of there as soon as possible because he really isn't into any of it.
     c.)He has no feeling for the organization what-so-ever
     d.)Why pay dues for something he really doesn't need?

4-The ASGCA following Fazio's refusal to pay any fine, suspend him INDEFINITELY. And then make it known he is building golf courses that are DETRIMENTAL to the GAME (Cost-Length-Taste-Lack of Strategy, etc. I could go on and on.)

5-The USGA, USGA Green Section and GCSAA can finally realize that attitudes like this are detrimental to the Game, and can take actions to arrest control of what has gotten too far out of hand. They have the biggest name in design making statements that can prove to any court in the land that over-active equimpment, manufactured by companies is creating the game to further spiral out of control. They can label it all--disruptive to the true Spirit of the Game for which they are TRYING to not only govern, but also create better, more affordable ways to maintain the quality of standards on the courses which the game is played. It could mean setting a EXACT limit on how far a ball should be able to fly at a swing speed that is concurrent to modern day standards.

So many more, so many more.

[tonyt]

I am very interested to see how Nick Faldo's work turns out, on two courses being built near Melbourne (including the second course at Thireenth beach). So it was with dismay during the Honda Classic telecast that Nick's delight in the new tournament site was reinforced with the accolade that on the world scene, "Tom's the man, the one".

Great  :-/

[Michael Dugger]

Hate to make the reference but if the shoe fits......

Sounds to me like it is time to visit Fountainhead again.

Can you say Peter??

[ChasLawler]

It seems there is about as much open mindedness towards Tom Fazio on this discussion group as there is towards Duke on a UNC basketball board. I think some of you have to read over Tom's statements again - were they really that offensive?

Unfortunately there is a large portion of golf fans out there that want nothing more than to see Tiger, Ernie, and Daly crush the ball 300+ yards in the air. And that number is most likely significantly higher than the group of people who are concerned about Merion never being able to host U.S. Open again.

The problem doesn't lie in the technology but in the attitude of developers and club members. How many courses out there will ever host a professional tournament? - not many. As much as technology may be affecting the pro game, it isn't having the same effect at the amateur ranks. The simple truth is that 99% of golf courses don't need to be 7500 yards long.

 know I'm not splitting atoms here, but if anything technology has indeed made the game more enjoyable for the majority of us. How many of you would gladly toss out your Pro V1's and Titanium drivers for the sake of golf course architecture?

I don't even know why the PGA Tour is concerned about technology. The same people who like to see the pros fly the ball 300 yards in the air like to see guys shooting 25 or more under par for a tournament. I don't think those people are going to stop watching, because the pros are making a mockery out of some of the courses they are playing on.

As for the U.S. Open, I don't see what the problem is with the USGA "doctoring" a course up for the tournament. What's wrong with narrowing the fairways and lengthening the rough? Sure, that may not have been the architect’s original intent, but things have changed: not only has technology improved, but the athletes have improved as well. Narrowing the fairways and lengthening the rough creates the ultimate risk/ reward on every hole, and that's what's fun to me about watching and playing golf. I really think it's that simple.

It's my opinion that we're coming pretty close to the apex as far as the technology curve can go. The COR limit has been set, and club heads really can't get any bigger than they are. Ball manufacturers have been making great strides in the development of the ball over the last 5 years, and I truly don't know how much further they can take that. I can't state emphatically enough how much I am against creating a "1 ball" rule on the PGA Tour.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that there are 2 games being played out there: the professional game and the game the rest of us play on the weekends. They are not the same. The question is whether we create golf courses for the pros, or do we create them for the masses.