Oh, Lordy!  Here we go...

Could someone please explain to me when was the last time Fazio had to work on a less than adequate piece of land...

Also....how many millions of tons of dirt or sand have been moved at St. Andrews in the last 400 years...or 4 billion years for that matter..

I see your point John, but millions of years of mother nature moving dirt, ends up with a far more natural look than say.....Shadow Creek.
I know which course I would rather play, one that resembles the architect fiiting the hole into the terrain as opposed to the other way around.

I'm not trying to rehash anything -- just wondering about great golf on less than tremendous properties. Fazio says you can build a great golf course anywhere -- and while I'm not sure that's true -- I think Dye did just that at the TPC. But I can't think of many others, which makes me feel this is far less common than Tom is letting on....

Robert

Has Fazio built a "Great" golf course on marginal land?  

I haven't experienced Shadow Creek, is it "Great"?

Recently played Glen Club in Chicago.  It was built on an airfield and is very nice but not great.

It is my opinion that great golf courses are very rare events.  Even given unlimited budgets, understanding owners, fabulous terrain and views, the creation of a great golf course is a rare and magical event.  Without those ingredients, it is like getting struck by lightening or winning the lotto.  Possible but highly unlikely!

Robert, I think you an I see eye to eye on this matter.
Whilst Sawgrass could be considered a great course, even when you are playing it you are well aware that this particular masterpiece is totally man made.
As opposed to the true great courses like Cypress, Pine Valley, Merion ETC.... that give you the feel that this land was a golf course all along.

I have played at least 20 Fazio courses, most of which I would classify as good golf courses, but none that borders on 'GREAT'.
As you said, there are still some great courses being built..notably Pacific Dunes and Sand HIlls, are they graet because of their natural terrain, or because the architects were so very good.
I am sure we all agree a combination of the two factors.

How about this quote, which I am just now putting up on the home page of my revised web site:

"The best courses of the past twenty years have been some of the least expensive to build."

I think it's a neat counterpoint to Mr. Fazio, though I agree with Brad, that if there are no limits, it's possible to create a great course from a pretty mundane site ... but most designers' batting averages are pretty low in those conditions.

Michael Wharton-Palmer,

What was or is so great about the land Merion is built on....and if you have never played there how about Oakmont..

Oakmont I will agrEe, but surely you are joking with regards to Merion......
The extent of elevation change on such a small plot of land  is spectacular, and the "quarry" holes of 16, 17 18, could only exist in ther splendid nature as a result of land Wilson was presented.

I cannot think of a golf course..inland in nature.. that is as reliant on its wonderful terain than Merion.
Take away the elevation change and you have nothing.

Then I apologise for the slightly sharp remark, if you have not played Merion, it is hard tp appreciate just how important the initial piece of land was to Wilson.
I use the word quary loosely some would call it a barranca I suppose, but it helps to create what could be the hardest finishing 3 holes in golf.

You must treat yourself to a visit, in fact perhaps we can set it up sometime...I assure you it will be well worth it, in my opinion it is up there with the thrill of playing Pine Valley, but it is the natiral changes in elevation that make the course what it is.

Perhaps the real issue is differing perceptions of greatness.  I am sure that we agree that more can be done with a "bad " site using today's tools than could have been done during the golden age.  I suspect that many of us believe that Tom Fazio, given the appropriate budget, is one of the best at working on such sites and provides a consistently good product.  It is entirely conceivable that he believes that the courses he is producing qualify as "great" while many of us believe they fall short of the standards for greatness established by Colt, Ross, Tillie, the Good Dr.,Thomas etc.  This really ties into Shivas' hypothetical from about a week ago which was inspired by a conversation we had (I confess) after I played Fazio's Golf Club of Tennessee in Nashville.  I remarked that it was a very good course on an interesting, albeit hilly, site but that it left me a little cold, much like a lot of the very good but not great Fazio creations I have played.  I wondered whether Fazio could do even better, recognizing his obvious and considerable talent and further recognizing the consistency in the product he produces.  Perhaps he believes that this is "as good as it gets" thus explaining his expressed views that the classical architects would have built courses like his if they would have had the tools and that modern courses are superior.

Tom: How would you characterize your work at Texas Tech, a course I have not seen, but reportedly not a great site. I think Ron Whitten took some shots at it in his review, saying that it was a clean slate and that he was somewhat disappointed in the outcome.
I know it was mid-budget, but could more have been done if you'd had more cash, or was that the limit of the site?
Could it have ever been, considering the land it was built on, thought of in the same class as something like Pacific Dunes?

Robert