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.

I've only played a couple of Fazio courses.  That ought to qualify me as stupid enough to participate here . . .  I dont presume to know who did what where, so when I refer to "Fazio" I include Mr. Tom Fazio and his whole company.  

Not sure what you mean by features, but here are a few typical themes (or preferences) of Fazio's work:


--  Fazio often builds courses on sites unsuitable for golf, by traditional standards.
--  Fazio often disregards the natural landscape/setting if the natural landscape/setting doesnt suit his design preferences.
--  Fazio sets out to build golf holes which photograph well.  He aims for an instant visual wow factor, with waterfalls, sharp features and contours, and other forms of visual flash.
--  Fazio aims to instantly gratify the golfer.
--  Fazio courses prefer downhill and avoid uphill par 3s.  
--  Fazio courses tend to contain misses, especially those on the right side of the golf holes.
--  Fazio courses tend to emphasize framing;  that is, they tend to feature vertical containment on each side of the hole to seperate the hole from the others and provide a vertical, visual frame for the golf shot.  The framing exists throughout the golf hole, and not just off the tee.
--  Fazio courses tend toward elevated, dramatic tees.
--  Fazio courses tend to minimize hazards which are actually in the line of play, and favor hazards which run parallel to the line of play.  
--  Fazio courses arent much concerned for creating strategic, risk/reward options for the golfer.  
--  Fazio courses tend to inform the golfer of the proper avenue of play, rather than confounding the golfer with multiple avenues and multiple choices.

There may be more . . .

I have now seen more than 50 of Fazio's 200+ courses, and I still can't describe his "typical" course. The more I see of his work, the more I see variety.

Crusty:

You've seen even more of his work than I have.  We get to see a lot of Fazio designs in Florida.

I agree with your sentiment and am looking for clarification.  Do you think the variety is more on his better or unique designs?  The ones where the sites are unusual and/or the stature of the club is higher.  I don't see as much variety in his work in Florida where sites tend to be flat and mundane by comparison.

He did Hudson National, no?  I think there are comparisons and similarities between Hudson and Spring Hill, which both are severe sites.

Regarding the assertion his multi-course complexes have provided the owners with variety, I don't know if that applies across the board.  Sabal and Cypress at Bonita Bay aren't cut from a different cloth and North and South and PGA Reserve seem interchangeable.  Go to Pine Barrens and Rolling Oaks and you clearly have two different animals.   Jury's out for me on Black Diamond.  Take away the quarry holes and the Quarry and the other 13 might pass for the Ranch.

I logged onto this thread hoping to learn something.

Who designed your home(r) course, crusty?
p.s.  Tommy says hello!
What site he (they) work(s) on is irrelevant because their philosophy is to buldoze all natural features wherever possible and create superior golf terrain and holes (paraphrased out of the "book".)

I know I'm not qualified to comment on Ross, Flynn or Mahan due to pre-conceived ideas.  But as I have played only more than 25 Fazio's am I only half as good as you at coming to conclusions?

Once again

Fazio's team, showing the hubris of self-titleing as "The World's Greatest Living Architect"(Why would only an American say such a thing, Tim Weiman, care toanswer that one?) needs to produce on a far superior level than they do to justify that moniker.  This is the heart of the matter.

BTW, Moriarty wrote a pretty good piece there.  Very little fluff.

Interesting comments made on this thread and even more interesting the blind Fazio supporters comments on only particular points, rather tan addressing them all.

DM offered 11 questions and here is my take:

1.  True....and very well I might add.
2.  True but stupid...should he design what he does not prefer as you say
3.  Stupid party line idiocy based only in what has been said on this site.
4.  Stupid freeze dried crystal crap.
5.  Newtons forth law of stupid...All holes on any given course all go down hill.
6.  True....just another option baby...at least on most first holes.
7.  Shadow Creek stupid Golf Digest article regurgitation.
8.  True....I've never teed off in a hole..but I might like it.
9.  Stupid...Forrest Creek has the best cross bunkers I have ever seen...and they are even up hill.
10. Stupid...do some field work my friend.
11. Somebody has to tell the stupid where to hit it.

JakaB:

Thanks for responding line by line to Dave's comments. I'll give them some thought, but off the top of my head I'm wondering a couple things:

a) Would the Fazio organization itself agree with all your points (e.g., #3, 4 and 7)?

b) Dave repeatedly used the word "tend". What is your understanding of this word?

Sorry...and on review I will say my take on 11 was insulting....So another answer might be.

11.  I am a member of a Fazio course and of the 14 non par 3's I can only gaurantee you that I will hit driver everyday on numbers 6,9 and 10...a long bunkerless par 4 number one handicap hole and two par fives I can reach in two.  I think this defines options off of the tee but I never denied being stupid and it is only one course.   Of these three 9 is the only pure don't hit it in the bunker stupid....even though I do prefer to hit in the bunker on the right side as it is not death.

I find it interesting that a discussion on Fazio's work avoids any meaningful attempt to get at who in his office has been responsible for the work you cite and discuss....If many of you find a course not to your liking among the prolific architects you immediately paint all of that office's work as being the same.

I think the first part of this is pretty interesting. I've asked on occasion if the reason for the perhaps unusual results on courses by one firm are the result of different design associates, but this question has always gone unanswered. By way of example, I know that several on this board who are not very enamored with Mr. Fazio have said great things about Galloway; likewise, many "Rees bashers" have said great things about Olde Kinderhook. Could these aberrant offerings be the result of renegade associates, if you will? (Obviously I am exaggerating for effect - I know the big buys aren't just going to unleash someone with no oversight).

The second part of this quote is a weak generalization of the type that the critics of the posters on this site love to make. The many critics of the whipping boys are far more detailed and specific in their criticisms than the defenders, who love to paint with broad strokes like this, rather than address said criticism.

Dave Moriarty:

Thanks for the reference to Fazio's own writing on the framing issue. I was very surprised JakaB disagreed with you on this point.

Tim,

I took every point from Mr. Fazio's book.  So, JakaB is essentially calling Mr. Fazio "stupid" and implying that Mr. Fazio is incapable of understanding his own architecture.  Perhaps JakaB thinks he has seen more of Mr. Fazio's work than Mr. Fazio?

To those who credited me with the concise post above, Mr. Fazio deserves the credit. I merely skimmed Mr. Fazio's book and pulled out my list.   I am sure my list could be quite a bit longer if I spent more time going through the book.

I find it fascinating that Fazio apologists such as my friend JakaB repeatedly accuse others on this site of misrepresenting and/or baselessly criticizing Fazio's architecture.  After looking at Fazio's book, I am more convinced than ever that Mr. Fazio embraces and espouses many of the architectural preferences which are consistently criticized by some on this site.  I see no bias or unfairness in honestly and consistently disagreeing with a man's principles, when one's own principles contradict.  

Why is it so so incomprehensible that some just dont agree with the way Mr. Fazio builds courses and generally don't like the courses he produces?  Do you Fazio apologists really think that playing more of Fazio's courses will change the minds of those who disagree with his fundamental approach to golf architecture?  

and how he is influencing or changing the classics.........

You forgot that one David!

Dave,

Not surprised. Whether or not one enjoys Fazio's work, his book does pretty clearly lay out his views about architecture.

Again, I was especially surprised that JakaB challenged you on the framing issue. Fazio is very clear about this matter.

I'm also surprised that JakaB questioned Fazio's efforts to create strong visual appeal. A good example can be found on #11 at Sand Ridge where the wetlands behind the green can be very appealing to the eye, especially in the fall. Also, "viewslots" permitting one to see from one section of the course to another were developed to highlight the beauty of the property.

I don't think I'm being "biased" in providing those examples.

The fact is that many people enjoy the way Fazio designs golf courses. He would not have the success he has unless that were true. There are also those who believe other architectural firms are doing better, more interesting work, often for far less money.

I won't jump to the conclusion either group is stupid. Hell, I can have fun on many courses that wouldn't make anyone's Top 100 or even Top 500. But, I often get the impression that Fazio supporters are less confident in their architectural views than say fans of Crenshaw & Coore.

I would like to believe that if Stevie and Ray DO play, they wouldn't play with Rush!

You can say that again! By the end of 18 holes, they'd probably wish they were blind AND deaf!

--------------

(Please note, those who need to: This was an attempt at cheap humor. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Mr. Limbaugh's political opinions -- but MERELY with his well-known fondness for hearing himself talk. I'd have said exactly the same thing if we were talking about, say, Al Franken!)

Redanman states "I don't give points.  I don't give strokes either."  As someone much taller than I once advised me, "That's not very sporting on your part"!

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy!  What can I say.  The way you talk about two of my favorite people- Tom and Rush.  It almost pains me to read your words.  If it wasn't something so socially desirable for members of this site to have a fine Italian man with a big heart succeed, you probably would be getting ripped to shreds.  And here I was ready to shake down the man himself for an autograph to send you while he was here yesteday playing in the Fazio Cup at the Vaquero Club.  BTW, when is the Hanse/Shackelford Cup at your beloved Rustic Canyon?  If I can get Rush to come, can he?