I think he did some of the bunker changes and the drainage ditches. Those non-water hazards are brutal.

Tom Marzolf of the Fazio office has orchestrated everything you saw — from weighing in on tree removal to all of the tees, bunkers, greens work and fairway delineation. He has lived and breathed Oakmont for the past 6+ years as I ujnderstand it.

It was surprising that Oakmont used Fazio?  I played with a board member of Oakmont last year and he said that they told him everything they wanted to do.  As an example, they would take him out to a spot and say "we want this bunker replaced to look like this" and show them the old photos.  He gave me the impression that Fazio had no say at all.   I've thought about why do you need Fazio or anybody to do that work???

Furthermore, I saw an article that MacDonald & Sons was hired in 2005 to rebuild some tees and reconstruct all the bunkers.  Again, why use Fazio or anybody for that fact as an architect.

Lastly, I heard from another architect who talked with the people at Oakmont a few years ago that Fazio waived his fee in order to get the job.

Lastly, I heard from another architect who talked with the people at Oakmont a few years ago that Fazio waived his fee in order to get the job.

I think that Fazio sonofabitch smokes too!  

Joel,

It is possible just possible that a guy who has done major championship renovations at Augusta, Merion, Winged Foot and Oakmont, four fairly different types of courses, simply knows how to set up a major championship course?

Is it possible, just possible that a board member from one of these clubs may know less than Tom Fazio and Company?

They did not THANKFULLY touch/soften any of the greens.  The telecast did mention expanding at least one green ro original size by replacing an RTJ bunker. They also mentioned that area with a pin was fairly flat.

Winged Foot redid/softened 5 greens on their East course - will they do any on the West under Marzluff?

Will the great success of Oakmont and especially its greens have any impact on Merion which is being asked (I believe) to soften the slopes on #5, 12 and 15?  

Hopefully, Oakmont working so well will give Merion the amunition to keep those greens intact.

Forrest

I like the elves story best - yes it was elves.

I mentioned the expansion (I guess of #2) by replacing the BUNKER that RTJ had put in years before.  

Did they soften any of the slopes on #2?

Did they soften any of the slopes on ANY other Oakmont green?

Did any of the other greens expansions aside from #2 require anything more then mowing?  At Yale superintendent Scott Ramsay recovered about an additional 25-30% of greens size all by himself with his staff by mowing.  It required no architect.

Having seen the Open this past week do you support the softening of any slopes on Oakmont's greens?

GJ — It does conjur an interesting image...elves dressed in caddie vests.

No. 2 was softened at the rear and enlarged. I think the front was altered, but everyone denies it. The rest of the work was expansions, which translates to softening because it allows more positions that are not severe, and therefore a "softening" of sorts.

George strikes an interesting point — Fownes always intended the course to be changed and bettered, so it has always been tinkered with. But, the changes we have seen in the past 4-5 years are at the direction of the Fazio office, working of course, with the members and USGA.

Would it be possible for this group to give Fazio props for the work?  Everyone liked the course, he was the consulting architect, so why not?

It would not be unusual for a member to say that they decided everything, just as a Donald Trump might claim that he designed his courses and that the other Faz just implemented his ideas.  Even if true, and I am sure its somewhat true in many cases, there is a lot of work getting from "give me this picture" to giving them that picture!

BTW, if Fazio waived or reduced his fee to get into the upper end club restoration market, he would not have been the first to do so.  Several well known gca's have done this, to my understanding.

And, if he did it, it made a lot of business sense - use profits from the then booming new course market to stake a claim in what he might see coming as the major market of the next decade to keep his firm going.  And, as we once discussed here, I believe he was aware that despite his success, few of his new courses were getting championships played on them, and by working at these type clubs, he is enhancing his resume.

Would it be possible for this group to give Fazio props for the work?  Everyone liked the course, he was the consulting architect, so why not?

Jeff

The bunkers looked and played great. Props for that.

I only mentioned that the greens were left intact (but for expansion (good) and recovery of green space that was converted to a bunker (also good). I mentioned this hopefully so the USGA will not press Merion to touch their 5th, 12th and 15th greens expept to mow them out to the edge of the green pads.

Mike,

The USGA says they are not architects, but have always felt they should control the general set up for their tournaments, at least to a large degree.  For that matter, while their agronomists aren't gca's they sometimes make recommendations based on the agronomic conditions they see, which some feel gets into architecture a bit too much.

George,

I think you fail to take into account that generally, Oakmont was deemed difficult enough for a US Open (although new tees were added for length on a few holes) while Augusta called them into "toughen" the course.  Also, in both cases, Fazio had to try to match the existing styles of what was there and the styles are of course, different.

The owners directive is enough to change the direction of the work Fazio did, as it would for any gca called in.  Apparently you see trying to achieve the Owners goals and matching design styles as a bad thing, but it is not, at least IMHO.  Overall, their process (including level of owner involvement) was probably the same or similar, even if the results were not.

George,

So you don't think the level of Owner involvement would have been similar on both courses?  How so, if I may ask?

I know Oakmont had the USGA tournament set up guys involved, as well as interested members.  However, at Augusta, the club itself is the tournament committee and the greens committee might not exist beyond the chairman.

I know that Marzoff spent years at Augusta charting shots as a basis for design. I doubt he had that op at Oakmont.

Other than that, I do think that the process - much like the scientific process of goal setting, ideaa postulating, researching, proposing and finalizing a design was about the same.  (It was mentioned that Oakmont went through many iterations, which is evidence of this process)

However, if the goals were different, the results would be different.

Of course, I say this as a gca who has been through similar processes, but who has no first hand knowledge of exactly how either of those master renovation plans came about, so I could be wrong.

I for one was not impressed with the look of the bunkers.  I found the layout of the church pews to be far too clean geometrically.