Oh sorry, I forgot, most any type of blindness is out in Fazio's era and in his repetoire because he claims golfers don't like it and won't accept it! That sort of voluntary limiting over a long and high production career eventually shows if you're capable of altering landforms as much and as often as Tom has. He should use more convexity in important playable areas and he'd be an even more complete architect, in my book. After all, it's one of the ways of Nature.

By bulldozing the humps and bumps, he is taking away one of the fun aspects of the game (for me), which is after hitting a shot to a blind fairway or green, seeing your ball in the perfect spot on the fairway or within tap-in distance of the hole.      

I think Fazio worked with the land as it was presented to him at Victoria National which leads to blind shots from the middle of the fairway on 3, 9, 13 and 15 with additional blind shots from the side of the fairways on 1, 2, 6, and 17 with common blind shots from the rough on 4, 8, 10, 12, and 14......not counting the par 3's which I have had blind shots on 5 from the greenside bunker and 7 and 11 from the opposite fairways, I have had a blind shot on 18 when playing from the 10th fairway.   So the only hole at Victoria National I have not had a blind shot is on the par three 16th....thanks Fazio...

The only blind shot that remains really difficult is the approach to the par 5 third hole....it is my favorite shot on the course and the most difficult....yard for yard..

If Fazio would subsitute the words "very good" for "great". I just might agree with him. I have played some very good courses built on poor sites, some designed by Fazio himself. However, most of the courses I have seen on poor sites are mediocre to average, due probably to a lack of funds or talent.

On the otherhand, almost all of the "great" courses I have seen started with an excellent site. Very few of the modern courses I have played meet my definition of "great". Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Friar's Head and perhaps, Kingsley Club are great, and they all have wonderful sites.

In spite of his apparent fascination with the challenge of so-so sites, it has been my observation that Fazio's best courses were built on excellent sites. (I have not seen Shadow Creek.)  World Woods, Galloway National, Forest Creek, John's Island West, and Members Club at Aldarra are among his better curses and they are all built on good sites.

I think that one of the reasons that C&C produce such outstanding courses is that they are very selective about which sites they will tackle.  Fazio seems to be willing to take on any site if the money is there. If he didn't do it, the owners would find someone else, and who can produce a better product on an inferior site?

A comparable exercise might be sites that could be considered to be very good (if not great) on which Fazio produced courses that were less than very good.

Robert:

I think it all boils down to one's definition of "great".  As I mentioned above, I have a very high standard for use of that term. On the other hand, A.G. Crockett says True Blue is great. In my opinion neither Fazio nor anyone else has built a great course on a mediocre or poor site since WWII. Using A.G.'s standard, you could consider many of Fazio's courses great. Tom seems to have a fairly liberal definition of the workd "great". I don't.

No offense intended A.G.

My point is that I think the label "great" should be used very carefully and should be applied only to a few very special courses. I happen to think that Tom Fazio has designed some excellent golf courses. I have played 60 of his courses and am a member of clubs that include 5 of his courses. However, I would call none of them "great". I mentioned on an earlier post the only modern courses that I consider to be great. Perhaps I am too strict in my use of the term, but my impression is that you (and Tom Fazio) use it too liberally.  I am completely dumfounded that anyone could consider True Blue a "great" course. I cited that example only because it was the freshest in my mind. My comment was not aimed at you personally. It was intended to urge all of us to avoid getting carried away with our praise. In my opinion, a "great" course deserves a 10 (or at least a 9) on the so-called Doak scale. Very few do. When someone declares a course to be great, I want to feel that I should get on a plane right away and go play it. My experience has taught me that if I want my praise of anything to have credibility, I must use it sparingly.