I do not recall this Fazio course getting any discussion here.  

It was recently brought to my attention that it is sandwiched in between Pacific Dunes and Fishers Island (two real slouches) in the GD Top 100 ranking, however ... even above Victoria National, which some consider Fazio's best course.    

I have not played the course and know very little about it so I appeal to the SE contingent and anyone else who might have something to offer.    

Good points/bad points.  

Pictures.  

Compare/contrast with its neighbors in these rankings or any others you want to throw in.

Wade Hampton is in the western NC mountains.  Its a national club that draws heavily from Atlanta.  There are houses in the develpment but the course is self contained and the homes are mostly not visible.  I've only played it once so my perspective is limited.  The course has a mountain feel with good but not great views.  It doesn't have huge elevation changes like you get at some mountain courses.  The course is in immaculate condition and is one of the more mature Fazio mountain designs since it is now 20 years old.  A solid routing with no weak holes, but also none that stand out as truly exceptional, although it has a very nice collection of par 3s.  I don't remember much about the bunkering, which may or may not say anything.  All in all it is a very nice course that is certainly worthy of discussion as a top 100 course.  At the same time, it is a bit of a mystery to me how it has climbed to such a lofty spot in the rankings.  At one point, there were not many top notch mountain courses in the SE so Wade Hampton stood out.  Now there are some really good options which are comparable.  If you get an offer to play do not refuse it.  You won't be disappointed.  Unless that is, you expect it to be as good as Pacific Dunes.

Ed

I have played Wade Hampton about 10 times, but it's been 6 or 7 years. Incredible property with some awesome views, with fall colors that will blow your mind. The golf course is a joy to play and for a mountain course pretty easy to walk. It is the best Fazio track I have played by far.

The course has good variety with par 4's ranging from 320 to 475, 1 or 2 reachable par 5's and a nice set of par 3's ranging from 110 to 225. The greens are fantanstic, usually rolling between 11 & 13 with a good amount of movement, but within reason considering the green speeds. Also good variety with elevated, fall-away and tilted green sites. You definitely want to stay below the hole!!!

I rank Wade Hampton in my top 5 inland courses and without a doubt the best mountain course I have played.

I was waiting for one of the Senior Members to dive into this and talk about Fazio's cookie cutter designs and how Fazio is an average Architect but an above average marketer, by name only. Personally, I have never played a Fazio course I did not like, Hampton, Eagle Point, Finley, Hasentree. From my view, they were all excellent golf courses, if not the architectural masterpieces that Pine Valley and Cypress Point are. He does what is asked of him, he does what people want. Thats why so many of his courses are Resort or Housing courses. People in general like to play them. Thats also why many of his courses do not hold major tournaments, but his clients don't want that. In general, Tom Fazio designs excellent golf courses.

Johnny M:

When you say "excellent" courses what you likely mean is that they are financially successful for TF and those whose projects he designs courses for.

The broader issue is whether those layouts are architecturally compelling. I don't know how many different TF courses you have personally played -- but I can say this -- having success in the market place is clearly a plus to his bank book and those who are selling the properties. There's no doubt if you judge success by that lone measure that TF is that and so much more.

The architectural components are what needs to be assessed and far too often TF layouts are lacking in some sort of real differentiation from one another. He's not the only architect that faces that quandry because too often architects follow the same pattern because of their own comfort zone in replicating it and because developers want to use it to build upon the dollar values they can sell properties.

In that narrow definition there's little doubt TF and those who use are successful -- are they truly expanding the range of compelling architecture. Given his overall batting average on that particular dimension I'd have to say no.

Give TF high marks for creating a style that is indeed something many others crave and have had replicated. The issue, for me at least, is whether all of the molds are nothing more than enriched detail to sameness.
 

Matt, I am a novice at this stuff.  So forgive my naivete.  But I see a lot of discussion of templates with respect to other architects which are revered on this site.  Isn't what you are describing a template for Fazio?  If so, how is this a negative for him but not others?  Thanks in advance!

Ed

Ed:

Fair question.

I don't give slack to any architect who routinely uses the same formula from one course to the next. Market success, as we all know, doesn't really mean compelling architecture that is fresh, bold and distinct. It simply means you are able to sell a style to others who are likely not knowledgeable about what other possibilities do exist.

Clearly, most developers don't give a twit about compelling architecture - so long as they can sell homes / real estate that's the only item they concern themselves with.

Tom Fazio is one of the most successful architects in the world. Yet he uses a template in so many of his designs. The bunkering pattern repeats itself frequently -- many times the hole patterns / lengths, etc, etc -- are often mundane and rarely, if ever edgy or dare I say controversial.

Playability is the central tenet in concert with creating a "setting" that is unsurpassed for average player naked eye appeal. The difference being that naked eye appeal is not the same as discerning golf eye appeal.

I base that assertion on the 70+ layouts of his I have played over the years. I don't doubt there are instances when TF does superlative work and there are those on GCA who refuse to admit that reality because they are so immersed in the particular style of only a chosen few.

Unlike other ill-informed posters who have only played a very tiny sampling of TF courses and then pronounce them all to be "excellent courses" I have to say Wade Hampton is a fine layout -- just because I don't see it among my personal top 200 doesn't mean the course is lacking in its totality -- it's just not that high in the area of compelling architecture to merit such a lofty position, in my opinion. Frankly, I am amazed at its placement on the Golfweek modern listing because other candidates -- some of whom I have mentioned -- should be much higher. I also think that more discerning eyes patrol the Golfweek rater waters than the other publications.

Ed, one of the key lessons I have learned -- is not to assume that if a course is designed by "x" architect then it must be automatically seen as being excellent or poor or somewhere in between. I don't tag architects in such a fashion -- however, a number of people on this site do that very thing.

I simply have opined -- both previously and now -- that each design needs to be seen for what it provides or lacks. My overall conclusion on TF is based on the sheer sample size I have personally played.

TF is very talented in generating repeat business. From the standpoint of dollars there's no disputing he is a success. However, the real issue is whether those layouts will stand any length of time. On that front, I see very, very few TF layouts being noteworthy.

Johnny M:

You need to carefully consider using the words "excellent" and "great." You remind me of the modern announcers who are wont to say that "x" ball player is "great" because of a single season of performance.

You also say without reservation that TF designs "excellent golf courses" from such a tiny sampling of what you have personally played.

No doubt your benchmark is one thing and mine another. Just keep in mind you have a more narrow sampling base from which you draw such conclusions.

Final item -- I have never given Donald Ross, or any other architect, a free pass when it concerns repetitive architectural elements that don't really add much to what was done previously. The key thing to remember is that no architect hits home runs with each design. Some do have major duds that strike out big time.

I've played WH ten or so times. It's a good course in a better setting (Cashiers, N.C. is one of my favorite places).

I have some sympathy with those who can't figure out why it's ranked as highly as it is.

I can't figure that out either.

Bob

Ed,
What do you think makes the course not feel so mountainous? How is it solidly routed?

JMorgan:

It is clearly in a mountain setting and has elevation changes, but not to the same extent as a number of other courses in the NC mountains.  To my eye that is a good thing since some mountain courses appear to be forced onto a piece of property that really isn't suited golf.  The holes seem to me to fit the land well and contain a nice mix of length, variety and shot-making requirements.  

I will also chime in on the question you asked Greg.  Champion Hills, Moutaintop, Brights Creek and Diamond Creek are all Fazio designs in the NC mountains.  I have not played Champion Hills or Mountaintop so I can't offer any insight to those courses.  Brights Creek has the potential to be as good as Wade Hampton once it matures but is part of a very large planned development that is oriented toward selling property.  In my opinion Diamond Creek is the equal of or better than Wade Hampton, but the club intentionally flies under the radar.  Strictly golf with only a handful of lots to accomodate out of town members.  In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member at Diamond Creek.  I don't think that colors my perspective since I joined after playing these course, but who knows for sure.

Ed
 

Ed,

Thanks for saving me from starting a thread on western NC golf courses which seem to be growing in quality and number!

I wondered how Bright's Creek compared to WH and Diamond Creek and now have a good answer.  It seems Bright's Creek was developed by some of the Forest Creek group and that would be a good thing to me!

I was once barbequed here a few years ago for saying that Tom Fazio had meant a lot to golf in NC and some of his best work compared favorably to old Mr. Ross.

To those who have played them, how would you rank his top courses in NC, including Quail Hollow and Eagle Point?

Thanks!

Hart

JMorgan-My reference to modern or dark ages is based on some of the generalizations that are used on this site. The Golden Age from 1910 to WWII, Dark Ages from 1950-1995 and now the Renaissance. Those are real generalizations as many architects cross over. Fishers Island is from 1926, so would be Golden Age. Pacific Dunes is from 2001, so would be Renaissance. Fazio and Wade Hampton would be from the "Dark Ages" and thats where my assessment came from. But certainly Fazio still designs courses today, but uses his same style. I think that style is what gives Fazio a bad reputation among many people on this site.

Hello Hart:

I think I have played all of the Fazio courses in NC except Mountain Top, and I never thought about "ranking" them until you posed the question. I am a course "rater" and not a "ranker". To me there is a significant difference. When I evaluate a course, I assign it a rating, but I avoid trying to rank it. That is the magazine's job. They take all of the ratings submitted for all courses and do the math to arrive at rankings. I did just list my ratings for all NC Fazio courses, and concluded that I would have trouble arriving at a ranking since there are several groups of 2-4 courses with the same rating. I will tell you that of the 15 courses, Wade Hampton has a rating that would place it in the top 5, but not #1. Quail and Eagle Point would fall into the next 5. Champion Hills, Finley and Treyburn would fall near the bottom. I consider my ratings for GW to be private, so that is far as I wish to go.

Back to the original thread, I have played Wade Hampton 3-5 times each year for the past decade. It is a very fine course, which has been improved to some degree just about every year. It is built in a valley, which explains why it does not have nearly as much elevation change as you might expect from a "mountain" course. While I like the course a lot, I too am surprised at it's high ranking. The only real negative is the cronic drainage problems. The area has one of the highest annual rainfalls in the continental US, so the course is usually pretty soggy in some places. They are constantly improving the drainage, so my rating has gone up some in recent years. Unfortunately, they now probably have more fairway drains than any course in the country. I think that opinions of the course vary depending on when you play it. The last two times I was there, it had not rained recently so the course was a joy to play. BTW, the routing is excellent except for the strange long walk from the 5th green to the 6th tee.

Many observers on this site (including Matt) attached a lot of importance to boldness and originality when evaluating golf courses. Some of the bold and original designs I have seen are not very good. I prefer to evaluate each course on its own. I see nothing wrong with repetition if it is done well. Maybe that's why I like most of Raynor's work.  Sand Hills is one of the few courses I give a "10" rating to. If Coore and Crenshaw could build 50 more exactly like it, I would give them all a 10.

Jim

Bart Bradley:


Keep in mind this - how many major championships have ever been played on a TF design? How many of his holes ever show up on an all-star listing of holes? When one thinks about it a case can be made that when TF was working with his Uncle George -- the overall product that duo was doing is as good as the top projects TF has done as an individual.

Matt:

I really don't get this argument.  How many majors are available to even consider a Fazio course?  Last I checked the Masters was in Augusta and the Open Championship was held on the same rota courses.

So many things other than the golf course go into decidiing where a PGA or US Open can be played.

For what its worth, how many majors have been played on a Doak course? Or a C@C course?

What if you were a course designer and were setting out to build playable member golf courses ....of course, they wouldn't be perfectly suited to host a major.  That doesn't mean you didn't do a good job!

I certainly respect your right to have an opinion, but I respectfully disagree.

Bart