Tom M.
No I don't think Fazio is any different from most architectects
in that subleties of a golf course (assuming they have some) are not easy to recongnize with only one or two plays. I have found this to be particularly true of Donald Ross courses. Probably the the most obvious example in the world is the Old Course at St. Andrews. How can anyone fully appreciate that course with only one, or one dozen, plays?
With regard to the charge of "over-shaping". I am never sure exactly how to define that term. I prefer the term "unnecessary shaping" because the amount that is required seems to vary considerablywith the site. I am reluctant to discuss my own course, but Forest Creek is an example where Fazio did not have to do too much shaping because the terrain has natural contours which he took good advantage of.
Your question brings to mind a thread you initiated a few weeks ago regarding designing on flat terrain. I did not post on that thread, but this looks like a good opportunity. My observation is that there are three basic approaches to designing on flat land. The first is to basically leave the land flat and just create some raised greens and tees. The job Dick Wilson did at Pine Tree is a good example of how this approach can produce a good course. Another approach is to take a flat site, move lots of dirt, dig several ponds and create a couse that makes no pretense of looking natural on the site. If you can overlook the fact that the course does not look natural on the site, this approach can work. Cassique is a good example. On the otherhand, this approach can result in a lot of rediculous looking mounds with little redeaming value. Grand Cypress North/South and the Dye course at Barefoot Landing are good examples. The third approach is to take a flat site, move a lot of dirt and create a design that has contours and slopes that look very natural. I honestly think Fazio is pretty good at this approach especially in coastal properties where dirt is easily moved. Some good examples that I have seen lately are Eagle Point, Berkeley Hall, and Daniel Island. In each case, the finish product looks like it fits naturally on the site and 98% of golfers would probably not notice that it is not. Some might call that "over-shaping". I admire an architect who can take a bad site and build a course that looks like it belongs there. All it takes is some imagination and lots of money! However, all three approaches can produce good results, or bad, I think