So...what are these features so typical of Fazio that are found in all of his work...just name three...if you are not too stupid.

JakaB

I've never played a Fazio course, but from my time on this site, the answer is pretty obvious to me:

1.  Non-adherence to classic design principles
2.  Overuse of framing
3.  Lack of strategery

Others who have played his courses can tell me what these answers mean.

Jaka/John I like Fazio courses but do not love them for they seem to have beauty over strategy. That is not to say they do not have strategy but it seems that eye candy is more heavily weighted in his courses.

2. Enormous bunkers, seemingly random in both shape and      location.

That is either stupid or Fazio did the bunker work on the recently posted Sand Hills photos...I going with stupid.

I must be stupid, I'm reading this thread.  My opinion of George Fazio's work is distinct from Tom Fazio's.  Who is the typical Fazio?

Rich Goodale,

Could somebody explain the "lack of strategy" claim.

Could they also use Shadow Creek and Galloway as examples, as I've played those two courses.

Thanks

I don't know many Tom Fazio courses but one I'm familiar with--Galloway National--has plenty of strategy and plenty of holes of real character, variety and interest--and in that I mean from tee right on into and through the greens. It has some incredibly rough bunkers in spots too. But the client asked Tom for this apparently.

The George Fazio courses I know are notable in that there are holes that are really good and holes that are remarkably bland. Holes that had natural interest George seemed able to route and highlight exceptionally well but holes on portions of his routings that didn't have much of anything going for them still don't!

AG,

You motivated this thread though your comment about Crabapple..congrats.  I took your take that "Enormous bunkers seemingly random is both shape and location" to be a bad thing....I just thought this also described the bunkers at Sand Hills....and we all know how stupid it would be to speak bad of any feature at Sand Hills.

Stupid me.

JakaB,

Waterfalls, Goddamn waterfalls.

Jeff F.

Pat- I can equate what a caddie says before teeing off as an indication of strategy or perhaps "options" is a better word.  

I.e. when I caddied at Spyglass on the first five holes I would often run the gambit of things to tell a first time visitor. Such as "you can hit it this far here" or "that far there" But when we get into the trees, the options are limited to finding the optimal spot, resulting in me saying "right center or left center" only.

I found this to be also true at Shadow Creek. The caddie stated "right or left center" on every hole. Without options the golf is one-dimensional. One dimension is obviously what some golfers prefer.  Why they prefer it is worthy of another web site all together.

I happen to be the other type, I like to have to think.

WWPB has exceptions to this type casting, most notably on the zig zag par 5 hole #4(?) as I'm sure other Fazio holes do to, just not predominately

JakaB
I haven't been to Sand Hills, so I can't begin to guess about how I would like it, or how the bunkers would strike me.  I have been to Crabapple, and my comment about the bunkers was sincere.  There are, in fact, just over 100 on the course, and they tend to be extremely large.  All in all, it is a gigantic golf course in every way, and the bunkers are just part of the picture.

By the way, I didn't indicate in that post that I didn't like Crabapple or Fazio courses.  In fact, in June I posted on the Frog, a Fazio course I liked a lot, and got roasted for it!  I don't like what Fazio did at UNC, and I've never thought much of White Columns, which is only a couple of miles from Crabapple and a very similar piece of ground.  I WOULD like to think that I could play a Fazio course that I hadn't seen before and be favorably impressed by it, as I was with the Frog.  Sorry if you took my meaning to otherwise in the Crabapple thread.

Watch the tournament this weekend, and look for the first par five on the back (#12, I believe). There is a split fairway that begins where a mound that was built into the fairway beyond the landing area.  The mound is huge, and has no less than five bunkers cut into it.  It is an odd looking feature to say the least, and has little to do with the way the hole plays, since it only really serves to block the player's view of the second shot.  The expense had to be tremendous, maintenance extreme, and nothing could be made to look more unnatural.  Other than that, its a terrific mound!  That's the kind of thing that bothers me.  Sorry if that's stupid, but I am what I am.

Tom Paul:

You correctly point out AG's complete words on Fazio and bunkering. Obviously, nobody here has ever described the bunkers at Sand Hills as “unnatural”

But, I wonder if many people might react the way JakaB did to the first part of AG's bunker description: "enormous....random….in shape and location”. Do such words really help distinguish one architect’s work from another?

On another point, I share your concern about Fazio and exorbitant costs. He is not alone in being involved with high cost projects (e.g., Herb Kohler, Pete Dye and Whistling Straits), but the emphasis on “quality golf” does come at a high price. Other architects are setting a better example for the game.

Tim
I wasn't trying to distinguish Fazio from other architects.  I was just trying to respond to the question at hand.  I would imagine that there are other architects around that also use bunkers with those same characteristics.  That doesn't mean that Fazio doesn't, or that those aren't Fazio characteristics.

BTW, I emphasize again that I never said that I didn't like the course, or Fazio courses in general.