I brought my copy of Fazio's "Golf Course Designs" book out because I haven't looked at it in a while and wanted to see what you all had to say. In it, on page 13, he says that if Ross and Mackenzie were given the same equipment that is available today, they would be doing the same thing that he is doing. I don't doubt there would be some things that they would take advantage of. However, Mackenzie would always talk about the economy of his designs and I'm not so sure that he would be "going to town" with these new found toys. I don't know enough about Ross' ideas to comment. With the equipment available today, would the architects of the past change their ideas on course design? I can't help but think that Fazio has been known to be very expensive on his construction costs (at least tht's what I've heard). Is this a reason why his courses are amongst the highest to play? He also states that he doesn't like repeating ideas and replicating what some of the classic designers have done because he feels he is doing a disservice to the customer because it's already been done. I wonder if a piece of a property would be perfect for a Redan, Alps, Reef or Gibraltar if it would be "unfair" to the customer simply because it had been done before. Some have said that Raynor only had a limited "bag of tricks", but the man made great use of them and I don't think many would say that he made bad use of land because it had been done by him before. What say you?

David:

You cover a lot of topics there and most of them I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.

However, I think it is fair to say that Mr. Fazio has always been insistent that modern golf courses are superior to older ones, and I know many modern architects who haven't put it in print but who agree with that.  I'm proud to say I am not in their company.

Tom,

A quote from the recent Golf Digest ranking issue concerning your work..

"A similar reclamation just occurred at No. 37 San Francisco Golf Club, where three holes cast aside more than 50 years ago (in anticipation of a highway expansion) were recovered by Tom Doak, who in recent years has also helped No. 55 Camargo Club and No. 88 Shoreacres restore their distinctive Seth Raynor designs. Of course, Doak is best known for imaginative original work like No. 14 Pacific Dunes on the Oregon coast and Lost Dunes in southwest Michigan, new to our list at No. 63, one of only six additions to the 100 Greatest in 2007, down from the record turnover of 18 courses in 2005."  

My question would be is why if old courses are better than your new courses why do the new ones rank higher even when you help the old ones along?  

 

To see SFGC rated so low is a shame, I guess my work drove it down, or else it lost ground with the banishment of "tradition" and I am sure most GOLF DIGEST panelists have not actually seen the changes.

 

Tom, I highly doubt the course dropped because of your changes. I think it's because of it not being seen. As for tradtion, I'm not sure in SFGC's case the dropping of tradtion would hurt it all that much. It's been such a bastion of privacy and no major tournaments of note have been played there as you know. Theoretically, Olympic would be hurt more by the dropping of that category, not that it is overrated, because of the history that has taken place there. BTW, I've only seen the changes in The Links article, but what you did at SFGC looks wonderful.

I guess I would ask why an architect who thinks he is better than the old masters would bother to fix up their overrated work, when he could be so much more productive building great new courses and knocking those old ones off the list fair and square?

BINGO - This about speaks to my criticism of Tom Fazio and his philosophy as written in his book[/size][/b]

Shadow Creek once knocked off those old courses fair and square and then the rules got changed.  I'm not a huge Fazio fan by any means and generally avoid his courses when I travel because I do think he repeats himself on almost every course.  I just think he is a very poor communicator either because he doesn't care or he thinks the core golfer is stupid.  I understand why and how he can build 200 top 20 courses...I just don't get why he couldn't have said it better or not said it at all.

I don't think it is immoral for him to work on famous courses and get off on the power in doing so...I'd gladly do the same if anyone cared or respected my opinion enough to ask.  As a road builder if I was asked to serve on the committee to pick out a new paint color or scheme for the Golden Gate Bridge I believe I would be on the first train out west.  Why not?

Hey....curious..what color would you paint that bridge? and would you use a brush or a spray gun?

I guess thats why its good you ain't running the show...  

DS, I believe some of the last Mac courses (ANGC/Bayside) were built in part with CAT toys, albeit smaller ones. I've not seen much on Bayside, but ANGC turned out OK. Would like to borrow that book from you. Remember, at least TF has given us a few playable courses near home for $150, surrounded by unplayable ones for $149.....

JK, there used to be a bar in Laguna called "the boom boom room"...what color scheme might that get?

Technology makes it possible to build good courses on land that in the past may have been unsuitable for construction. Mackenzie made some awesome courses but no one can deny that he had some great land to start with in many cases.

Fazio invariably has large budgets and if the land isn't so great to start with he can create the course from 'nothing'. If the old masters were still around I'd be willing to bet they'd be using all the available technolgy in similar circumstances.

Perhaps that's what Fazio was talking about?

Mike - I disagree with part of your premise.

The vast majority of homes built today are inferior to homes of the earliest 20th century - although they do have more technology applied.  There is less integrity of material and less true craftsmanship/workmanship, and a greater focus on mass-produced efficiencies and materials.  A very small percentage of highly custom homes defy today's conventional processes.

Today's agronomic understanding, emphasis on positive drainage, and capacity to constructively move dirt to make previously unusable sites suitable for golf probably have been improvements in modern golf courses - from those perspectives.

But - Isn't golf course design limited today - at least in the mainstream (whatever that is) - because of technology and the requirement that maintenance/design accommodate modern construction and maintenance equipment - and perhaps in some cases "engineered" stormwater management practices?  Don't those limitations create constraints that didn't exist with most classic, old courses?

Your thoughts?


Steve,
I think you are probably right for mainstream.....but some of the smaller stuff like the Takeuchi track machines etc can alow for the same shaping as in the past and some of the new mowers can do the same..lke the flex 21 toro for greens etc(and there are all types of opinions on that).....but say ADS pipe vis clay tile.....today grasses vs yesterday....topdressing machines vs old methods....all is better IMO..

As for houses, I was speaking of comparable houses aesthetically and craftsmanshp wise.....

BUT Yes you are correct in that today we "DUMB DOWN" all construction(hosing,golf,cmmercal) because of machinery and materials  IMHO...
Here we don't construct for the longterm..there are countries as you know where people have good houses that are older than our country....
Mike

If the discussion centers around technical aspects such as drainage, the ability to transform "impossible" sites etc., then it is hard to argue that modern architects who have access to technological and agronomic advances are more capable of producing a consistently outstanding product than the old masters who were limited by their tools.  If he is not the best, Fazio is among the best at taking advantage of these advances.  But I think Fazio is trying to say more than that because I do not believe he is so naive as to believe that the engineering involved in building a golf course is the sole or even the key component used to measure the excellence of the design.  If that were the case, the only thing we would be discussing would be conditioning and perhaps beauty.

The component that Fazio downplays is the strategic element of golf course design, the manner in which the architect uses the land, his tools and his imagination to create memorable challenges that remain interesting over multiple plays.  This is not to suggest that Fazio fails to achieve excellence in this regard, rather it is to observe that this part of the design game (which to my way of thinking is probably the most important part) is more of an afterthought.  Reread the book and ask yourself how often he even mentions strategy much less discusses it in depth.  Then compare it to the discussions of "framing" and other concepts designed to enhance the look of the course without regard to the challenge presented.  Viewed in that light Fazio's philosophy becomes clear and it explains why he builds a consistently "very good" product but, given the number of projects and the budgets, he rarely crosses over into the realm of the "great."  It may also explain why other modern architects who do less work nevertheless have more courses that are viewed as reaching a higher level of excellence.  It also may explain why many of us prefer the best works of the old masters to the works of Fazio.  His may be better engineered and they may even be prettier (holding constant the fact that some sites are naturally more attractive than others,)  However the courses from the golden age are generally more fun and provide more interesting golf.
  Note I recognize that Fazio has built some truly outstanding courses and rarely builds a clinker, I am discussing his philosophy as dictated by the thread and its overall impact on his body of work.  I have played about 15 Fazio courses and look forward to playing and seeing more, particularly Victoria National when I can haul myself down and visit Barney.

...
The component that Fazio downplays is the strategic element of golf course design, the manner in which the architect uses the land, his tools and his imagination to create memorable challenges that remain interesting over multiple plays.  This is not to suggest that Fazio fails to achieve excellence in this regard, rather it is to observe that this part of the design game (which to my way of thinking is probably the most important part) is more of an afterthought.  Reread the book and ask yourself how often he even mentions strategy much less discusses it in depth.  Then compare it to the discussions of "framing" and other concepts designed to enhance the look of the course without regard to the challenge presented.  Viewed in that light Fazio's philosophy becomes clear and it explains why he builds a consistently "very good" product but, given the number of projects and the budgets, he rarely crosses over into the realm of the "great."  It may also explain why other modern architects who do less work nevertheless have more courses that are viewed as reaching a higher level of excellence.  It also may explain why many of us prefer the best works of the old masters to the works of Fazio.  His may be better engineered and they may even be prettier (holding constant the fact that some sites are naturally more attractive than others,)  However the courses from the golden age are generally more fun and provide more interesting golf.
...

So it is your conclusion that TF doesn't pay enough attention to strategy when building his courses, is it not?

Could you make this more concrete by putting a well regarded Fazio course up against one of the courses Ran does in depth here and giving us your analysis. Enquiring minds want to know ...... more.
 

Quote from: Garland Bayley on March 30, 2007, 07:26:51 PM

So it is your conclusion that TF doesn't pay enough attention to strategy when building his courses, is it not?

So, do you think Fazio plants trees at ANGC just for the shade?

I think Fazio plants trees at ANGC, because he is told to.

When Tom Fazio writes, "The final judgement will be rendered by the golfers themselves, will they like the golf course or not?" (pg. 150) can he be legitimately be accused of pandering?

Edit: More pandering? "I would prefer to see par three holes play downhill. Everyone loves to stand on an elevated tee and look down to the green."