JakaB,

I don't hate Fazio.  I think he has designed wome good courses.  I particularly like the courses at PGA Golf Club in Port St. Lucie, FL.  However, I think he is not the PREMIER restorative architect in the business and I question his purity as a golfer when he gives in to or advises clubs to make changes that I believe are a complete makeover of a classic hole or course...and...I could name numerous other architects I would choose to design or renovate my course.

Let's put it this way, Fazio is like Black Angus when I'd much rather be at Peter Luger.

Jeff F.

JakaB,

I know he isn't the king of waterfalls but some of the courses I have played of his have them.  I don't mind them if they are natural but the man-made kind are such eyesores.

I was stretching for something to complain about, Barney .  I guess the only thing I would call "Typical Fazio" are his expesive fees to build, in most cases, very average golf courses.

Jeff F.

John- Thanks for clarifying what this post should be about.

Since there really hasn't been any (too much) Fazio bashing lately on this site, I was wondering why you would bring up something that is so contentious.

But, since you have clarified what and why you made this thread, I feel sorry(for u) if you can't tell the difference between a thought provoking design and those that have led the minons to cry out for more intelligent designs.

Can you imagine what the man could do with his ability to construct if he(they) had the understanding that option filled, is what these purists want? I guess he's done it in spots but the word "typical" would lead a passive reader to think that the fat part of his bell shaped curve is only adequate.

What about a typical Doak? What does that make you think of? Or a typical C&C? How about a typical Mac?

JakaB
For what it is worth, the term I used in the Crabapple thread was NOT "typical" Fazio!  I used "stereotypical", and I used it on purpose, so that those who like his designs, those who don't like his designs, and those who are somewhere in between could avoid value judgements.  YOU were the one who changed the wording to "typical".  Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Additionally, the only feature I referred to as stereotypical was lots of enormous bunkers.  There are over 100 bunkers on the Crabapple course, and if you watch the tube this weekend, you might agree that they are somewhat large.  Like it or not, that IS part of the sterotype of a Fazio course, isn't it?  I don't even care if you like the course or not; that's a lot of big bunkers.  Again, I got reamed here this summer for daring to say I liked a Fazio course!  Where were you then?

Wasn't last weeks pga held at a Fazio also? La Cantera? If so, maybe by looking at some of the scores shot during this years schedule will confirm that the collective you site knows stuff. I believe the 61, 62's were had opposed to the 66's at Westchester of the comparably high rounds at Pebble and The Riv.

John- If your intent was to insult me with your agronomy line, forget it. Won't happen.

Adam,

I admire your take on agronomy and almost told you so at the time...If I wanted to insult you I would question why you just said that low scores on the PGA Tour proves bad architecture...was the course not long enough for you baby doll..

dbb

John, We need some pictures to post--do you have any? send them to me and I'll post them.

Fazio is a very talented architect. He has an artistic/aesthetic flare that very few architects past or present have possessed. One of the reasons you will find variation from course to course is because of the variation in stylistic preferences of his associates.

His green designs are not a problem IMO. The greens are the strength of Sand Ridge, and they are very good at Forest Creek.

Aesthetic presentation seems to me to be a point of major emphasis. Often his hazards are places to create a lovely picture, off the tee or approaching the green. I’ve noticed a certain repetitiveness in the placement of the bunkers, there appears to be a desire to frame each hole. I’ve also noticed he repeats bunker shapes from course to course.

One of the tactics he uses is to landscape the area surrounding the tee. Often creating waste areas or actually bunkering the teeing area. His courses have hyper-natural appearance. I prefer the real thing, with all its potential ugliness.

In his desire to present a perfect picture, he often uses a heavy hand to shape the fairways and the result is sometimes a fairway that bears no relationship to the natural contours of the land. Forest Creek is an exception, the greatest asset that site had was the rolling topography and for the most part he utilized it with little interference…at least in using the major contours. But you will never find the smaller oddball natural ground contours on his courses. Even some of the more distinctive contours, like at the 18th at Sand Ridge, seems to a man-made manipulation.

Because he likes to be in control of the picture, he rarely pushes the envelope. For example at Victoria National you have all these wild waste piles. Instead of bringing them into play and creating some very unique holes--some possibly a little odd or quirky or exhilarating--he chose to use them on the perimeter, to frame the picture. And when they are perpendicular to play, you really aren’t aware of it….at least I wasn’t. One of the most interesting holes on the course is the par-5 on the front, which has a waste pile encroaching into play.

The fact you won’t find any bad holes or odd holes or quirky holes is a weakness IMO. Although aesthetically pleasing and possessing solid shot making requirement his courses can have somewhat staid quality, because he rarely allows nature to throw him off his formulaic path…each hole being a potential signature hole. If he ever let his air down he would be hard to beat.

His 'renovation' activities is another story.

You can see photos of every hole at this link:
http://www.blackdiamondranch.com/page/2-94.htm?course_id=4&hole=1

JohnV- Thanx

Barney- Don't you find it interesting that there seems to be an inherent barrier to extremely low scores on these older courses?

I do. Blame it on the severity of the greens and the modern speeds, the reasons are not as interesting as the observation.

Forrest - you are quite right.  When Fazio talked to us at the rater outing in Pinehurst last year he said that his firm had something like a dozen senior design associates with an average length of time at his firm of 18 years.  Each associate is assigned as the principal architect on new courses the firm picks up.  With Fazio's know desire to spend more time in NC with his family, we asked how he could possible travel to, and spend any quality time at, all the sites he had going.  He all but told us the vast majority of the work was done by his staff.  Like Ross, there are courses with Fazio's name as the architect that Fazio may have never seen (he refused to confirm this).  What he did tell us is that every routing plan is reviewed and approved personally by Tom Fazio.

Jonathan

Forrest:

In general, we don't discuss the work done by design associates, shapers or interns for any architect. Fazio, in this regard, gets treated like any other architect, though certainly Tom Marzolf's name is used here fairly often.

Are there exceptions? Just a few. People like Dan Proctor, Dave Axeland and Jim Urbina, for example.

The story behind some projects does include an especially talented crew, e.g., the new course at Stonewall. However, typically this "inside" knowledge doesn't make the headlines.

Keep in mind that some firms deliberately obscure who really does the work as part of their branding and marketing strategy. I'd offer European Golf Design as an example to add a European perspective: clearly Bernard Langer didn't design the Portmarnock Links Hotel course, but marketing guys seem to think more people will play it if they pretend he did.