[Ed Oden]

There have been many threads on this site critical of Tom Fazio and Rees Jones (and their design firms generally) for their work on golden age courses (Augusta, Riviera, Torrey Pines, to name a few).  See today's thread on Tom Marzolf's comments in Links as a recent example.  While I certainly understand why many here are not big fans of Fazio's or Jones' work on classic courses, I think this criticism is entirely misplaced.  As best I can tell, these firms make no bones about what they do.  And there is by now a mountain of historical evidence regarding their work.  So I seriously doubt that any club that engages one of them has a false impression about what they are getting.  On the contrary, I think they want exactly what Fazio and Jones bring to the table, typically in an effort to toughen a course up for championship play.  When a club hires a Fazio or a Jones to rework their classic course haven't they made a conscious choice not to "restore" their course to its original glory?  If so, I have a hard time taking Fazio or Jones to task for doing what their clients ask.  If you don't like the end result, shouldn't the blame lie with the clubs that choose them, not the architects for doing what they were engaged to do?

[Bart Bradley]

Yes.  well said.

Bart

[Adam Clayman]

In the case of Riviera Marzolf paid no attention to Thomas taking great care not to build any feature that flowed against the natural flow of the property. The total disregard for intelligent design elements has been a subtext of some of their public statements.

[David Stamm]

Ed, there is no doubt that the membership plays a part in this. They are the ones that hire the architect.  But let me ask you. Do the members really know as much about their own course as the architect does? With very few exceptions, I would say no. While it's true that the names you mentioned have made no bones about their approach to redesign work, if the "other side" is never presented the membership will never know. These men are "known" names, so in the memberships eye, they must now what they are doing. For all the members know, George  Thomas may as well be Dave Thomas and Alister MacKenzie was one of the brothers in Strange Brew. In regards to your statement about what the memberships want, I don't think they do know what they want, at least on the ground. They are told what they want and they never understand what the intentions of the design features of the original architect were/are that the present "name" architects are telling them have to be changed. See the 12th at Bel Air CC. Fazio and Jones are not the first ones to be doing this to be sure, but they are the most high profile. Why? Because of the work that is presented on a world stage ie The Masters, US Open and the PGA. I think the "blame" lies with the organizations that continue to hire them when they call themselves protectors of the history of the game. They should be ashamed of the way they have handled golf's greatest cathedrals all in the name of "testing the best players in the world" when alot of the design features of these hallowed grounds are never allowed to shine because "Par" must be protected and the course set up's that ensue. All the members know is that they hear Jones or Fazios name mentioned a couple of dozen times during a broadcast and the therefore they must be the best for the job. That is why it is, IMHO, imperative that memberships be educated at the club level and learn about their respective courses and the history of them. Why the architects did certain things a certain way. TEP can provide ample examples at what happened at Gulph Mills in this regard.

[Ed Oden]

Adam, I guess my point is that if the goal was to restore per Thomas, why would you hire Fazio in the first place?  I doubt that was Fazio's marketing pitch.  So if they weren't engaged to follow Thomas' lead, is it their fault the finished product didn't do so or the club's for hiring them in the first place? I've never played Riviera, but based on what I have read, I would agree that many of the changes were not for the better.  But my analogy would be that if I own a historical landmark building and hire a modern architect to gut it and turn it into the trendiest loft apartments in Urbanville, USA, is the architect to blame for putting in Scandinavian plumbing fixtures or am I for deciding to go down that road in the first place?

David, I see many of your points, particularly about the USGA, PGA and ANGC touting these firms.  On the other hand, I am a member of a very middle of the road club with a Donald Ross course that is currently being restored.  Granted, hiring a Fazio or a Jones was not a financial option for us.  But we were certainly in tune with our historical roots as part of the process.  In my experience, the high profile clubs like Riviera are the MOST protective of their heritage since that is a large part of the appeal of the club.  I have a hard time believing that the club's board and many of the members were not keenly aware of what they possessed: i.e., a classically revered course.  So I suspect that these clubs often choose the golden goose of a major championship or big tour event over their heritage.  If so, in my opinion, that is not the architect's fault.

[John Moore II]

I feel that the architects that work on these supposed 'restorations' are to blame somewhat. These architects know generally what style the original course was. They simply change the course to what they want. I've had several back and forth discussions with Pat Mucci about this subject. I think the architect should attempt to educate the membership on what the original architect may have wanted in the course, but in the end, it is the membership that approves and sanctions the changes to the course. And depending on which side of the fence you fall, you can view this as protecting or destroying the architectural heritage of a given club.  Are you destroying the heritage if your club has historically been a Major Championship venue, but now it is not because it is obsolete? And on that same line, are you protecting the heritage if you do not change anything? For courses that do not have a tournament heritage, I think the changes that take place are generally not as extreme or out of character.
--I feel that both parties, the membership/owners and the architect, are to blame in this matter. Neither party is innocent when a poor and out of character redesign takes place.

[Bart Bradley]

Okay, let's say you own a business that has been in your family for years and you go out and hire a new CEO that is well known for massive layoffs, cuts in expenses and generally changing the way things have been done.  When your business no longer resembles the one that you spent your life building, who is to blame?  The CEO for doing exactly what he was hired to do, or you?

I agree with Ed... The people that are on the board of these older, acclaimed courses should know what they are getting when they bring in a hired "gun" architect...It is not up to that architect to lay out the options...the board members should have researched the options before hiring an architect.  The blame lies with the people whose job it was to protect the course: the owners (members) of the course itself.

Just my opinion.

Bart

[Mark_Fine]

A huge part of master planning work on older courses is research and education.  Sometimes those steps are skipped and/or mitigated and that is when golden age courses get violated!  Not all courses should be restored, but all at least deserve a good look and some architects don’t bother with this part of the process.  Therein lies the issue with the work done by some architects on classic designs.   They really don’t care what some past architect had in mind 80 years ago so they skip right to the recommendation phase and/or do just what the client thinks is best.   I know for sure that one of the classic designs that I worked on for many years would have been lost for good had we not recommended the research and education approach to help make the right decision for the club.    

Bart,
Big name architects carry a lot of weight.  I'll also let you know that most of the people in the decision making process at clubs don't read Golf Club Atlas. 

[Tom_Doak]

Ed:  I agree with you that it is the club's job to preserve its heritage. 

However, sometimes architects represent themselves in meetings with the board and the membership that everything they do will be sympathetic to the original design, and then forget all about what they promised when it finally gets to construction.  [I recognize that sometimes this is a disagreement of opinion ... but sometimes it's not.]

[Ed Oden]

For those in the know, was Fazio the only big name architect Riviera talked to?  If not and others pitched for the job, doesn't that support the notion that the club chose its intended path, absent the "disagreement" scenario Tom Doak describes (whether intentional or unintentional)?  And if they didn't talk to more than one firm, is that decision worthy of scrutiny as well?

As an aside, I do not intend for this to turn into a thread that is critical of Riviera's or any other club's management.  For all I know, these clubs are entirely happy with their end result, notwithstanding contrary commentary on this site.  My point is that, ultimately, it is the club's responsibility to protect itself.  That doesn't mean that an architect shouldn't be a helpful resource in that endeavor.   

[Kalen Braley]

Ed:  I agree with you that it is the club's job to preserve its heritage. 

However, sometimes architects represent themselves in meetings with the board and the membership that everything they do will be sympathetic to the original design, and then forget all about what they promised when it finally gets to construction.  [I recognize that sometimes this is a disagreement of opinion ... but sometimes it's not.]

Tom,

This raises an interesting question.  When a club goes about this in what can a club hold your feet to the fire?  Does the contract and work to be done include pictures, drawings, specs, etc so by they have something to measure the completed work?

If not I could see the architect doing a song and a dance afterwards if the completed work doesn't live up to what the club envisioned would go in the ground and trying to claim its "restored" as discussed?  Or is this pretty much a "good faith" component on behalf of the club that the archy will do good work?

[Ian Larson]

I cant say with 100% confidence, but I dont think Riviera opened the table for bids from other architects. I could be wrong on that but I dont remember hearing about any other archie that put a bid in and got denied. And because Riviera is owned by one man did the membership really have alot of say? I do know that their membership is protective of their heritage and course. So why did it end up with a Fazio feature renovation geared toward the annual PGA tournament and not a restored Thomas geared toward the PGA? Are Thomas' features not worthy of the PGA? Normally I would say its the memberships fault because they do their homework and sit through committee after committee meeting. But Im not sure that was the case with Riviera.

[Tom_Doak]

Ed:

In the case of Riviera, I can tell you that as Ian says they never "put it open to bid", but over the past ten years the club has talked to Coore & Crenshaw, to Jack Nicklaus, and to me, in addition to Fazio Golf Design.  Coore & Crenshaw declined to be involved further after the greens debacle in 1993, and I declined after much consideration because I feared being caught between the membership (where I have several friends) and the ownership (who have a somewhat different agenda than their members).  Both groups love the course but they have different goals for it.

Kalen:

In the end, it's a matter of good faith ... as Dr. MacKenzie once wrote, as long as the architect completes his job with 18 holes in the ground, everything else about construction (and design) is a subjective matter.  The problem is that at many clubs there is very little application of "buyer beware" -- too often they hire a name (whether that name's repuation is based on new courses or renovations or tournament golf) and then just let the name run with it.  That thread a week or two ago with the quote from the superintendent at Scioto was a great example.

Above all, we insist that any of the clubs we work with have a mission statement prior to hiring us ... if we don't agree with the mission then we don't sign on.

[Ed Oden]

Thanks for all the insight.  Tom Doak, I appreciate your firm's philosophy and think it is clearly the preferred approach if the goal is to preserve architectural integrity.  Unfortunately, I suspect that clubs that hire Fazio or Jones to work on an existing course are likely doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with preserving architectural integrity and everything to do with maintaining relevance for tournament play.   Once that engagement is made, I don't find fault with the architect for delivering on the goal.  Are there any examples of a classic golden age club that hired Fazio or Jones strictly for a restoration with no desire to attract a top flight event? 

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Ed, to add to Tom Doak's post, ownership and management at Riviera said that Fazio was going to restore Riviera and update it to today's game.  So they lengthened it and in doing so trampled some of its architecture.  They also wanted a US Open.  The USGA also encouraged use of the Fazion Design firm.
You are right, not all blame goes to the Fazio design firm for the loss of some of the Thomas architecture, it is shared between management and Marzolf.
Management tried and still tries today to say the changes are restoration and what Thomas would be doing to preserve shot values.  This all for 4 days out of the year.
In staying away Doak and Coore made good decisions. 
Someday Riviera will be restored, but it is way down the road.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

Thanks for the insight.  Certainly in the case where a new course is to be built, it seems very much the case that what one gets is what they get so to speak.  However in the case of a restoration where the features once existed, they are fairly well documented in pictures, and the client clearly wants them restored, it would seem the client would be in a much better position to demand accountability.

But as you state, apparently egos, politics, relationships, and ignorance would seem to get in the way of a faithful restoration.

[Bart Bradley]

Is anyone here a member of a private course architecture committee where an architect was hired to do a restoration  with specific instructions to return the course to its history and yet something else was produced?  I am having a hard time with this one.  I sit on just such a committee and every possible detail is reviewed before approval is granted ...even so much as removing some brush from a small "island" out in a lake adjacent to the 18th green (NOT EVEN PART OF THE GOLF COURSE).  Just curious.

Bart

[Tom_Doak]

Bart:

From my own experience, I can tell you that I've only had two or three clients who specifically asked me to return the course to its history, and even then, one or two of them had caveats about wanting to add new tees or keep some particular feature that had been changed.

So, I doubt there are very many examples of exactly what you said.  More typically, the marching orders are to "respect the original design" and that can lead to a wide range of interpretations.  In fact, Tom Marzolf would probably insist that's what he's doing at Riviera, as the ownership does also.

[Bart Bradley]

Bart:

From my own experience, I can tell you that I've only had two or three clients who specifically asked me to return the course to its history, and even then, one or two of them had caveats about wanting to add new tees or keep some particular feature that had been changed.

So, I doubt there are very many examples of exactly what you said.  More typically, the marching orders are to "respect the original design" and that can lead to a wide range of interpretations.  In fact, Tom Marzolf would probably insist that's what he's doing at Riviera, as the ownership does also.

So Tom:

If the club does not ask you to return to the historical aspects of the course or specifically asks you to keep new additions, are they not the ones responsible for failing to preserve the club's heritage? 

Bart

[Jim Thompson]

Most blame atrchitects because its easier then recognizing that a course's heritage can't be restored unless the palayers want to use the equipment of the time of construction.  Players expect so much more than what can ever be achieved and fail to recognize the limits of change.  The question as always is - Do you want it put back to what it was or do you want me to do what the creator would have done given today's game?  If you put it back all the stuff is in the wrong place for today's equipment and if you do what makes sense you will have changed features so dramatically that you'll be crucified for canging the integrity of the course.  A lose / lose situation if you ask me.

[Ed Oden]

Are there any examples of a classic golden age club that hired Fazio or Jones strictly for a restoration with no desire to attract a top flight event? 

Does anyone know of any examples?  When it comes to work on existing courses, it seems that Fazio's and Jones' reputations have long been cemented in the "tournament play" camp rather than the "respect the original design" camp.  Surely clubs know this.

[Tom_Doak]

Ed:

I don't believe Cypress Point has any intention of hosting a major event but Tom Fazio is "assisting" there [though not on the record].  Pine Valley, too.

I know Rees Jones has done work on a bunch of courses that haven't hosted big events, but I can't say that those clubs weren't hopeful of attracting an event when they signed him up.  Sleepy Hollow is a notable example of one which subsequently hired a different restoration architect to re-do most of the work Rees had done.  Quaker Ridge is another, although I guess they did have the Walker Cup around the time of his changes.

[Ed Oden]

Tom, as always, you bring real examples/answers to the questions at hand.  That's much appreciated.  Do you have any sense of how Fazio/Jones have done on those courses?  In other words, have they "respected the original design" when that is the marching order?

Ed

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()