Fazio disparages Golden Age architects? ??

[jim_lewis]

Waiting on the rain to stop gives me time to ask a question that has been bugging me for months.

During the past many months there have been numerous posts which stated that Tom Fazio lacks respect for the Golden Age architects and that he disparaged them in his latest book, GOLF COURSE DESIGNS. Those claims have always puzzeled me since I didn't get that impression from reading the book and because I am aware of comments he has made that reflect an appropriate reverence for the old guys (as well as his modern peers).

So, last night I re-read my copy of his book looking for the disparaging remarks that I apparently missed the first time around. I still don't find them.  Maybe my reading comprehension skills are lacking or maybe there are pages missing from my book. After all, many different versions of the book were published including chapters which featured various Fazio couses/clubs. I have the Forest Creek version.

Can/will some of you who have a copy of the book at your disposal quote some examples of his disparaging remarks?  It will be helpful if you can lead us to the specific chapeter and page.

My concern is that this assertion has been repeated so many times, and by some of our more distinguished contributors, that it has come to be accepted (and repeated) as fact by many who have not read the book for themselves.

[GeoffreyC]

Jim

I'm afraid that this might be the first of 300 posts but here goes anyway  

I don't have time to post much here (have to go play in some of that drizzle you are sending up from North Carolina) but here are a couple of examples.  By the way, the whole book has a tone to it of one where he can do things so much better today then the dead guys could that it's hardly worth his effort to tell us.

page 68 middle of page

"In the so called "classic" era, designers picked ideal sites whenever possible where golf holes could be easily fit into interesting terrain, but even those ideal sites often had flad or unattractive areas that could not be avoided. So designers connected the interesting areas with holes that were not so grand. ..... Today we couldn't get away with that. After playing a new course, a golfer might say something like; "Well it was pretty good, but there were one or two weak holes"...... THe challenge of the 1990's is to build golf courses that have no weak holes."

page 71 - he first asks if perhaps the new courses are a bit overdone and then says in defense

"Perhaps some of them are, but I also wonder how high some of the top twenty courses would rank on todays lists if they were brand new and hadn't been designed by a famous architect."

I think Fazio is obsessed with rankings (particularly top 20) yet he probably correctly judged the tastes of the majority of golfers and certainly takes advantage of advertising and the "Augusta effect".

Note that I'm not saying he doesn't build some really fine courses but the book is so full of the things that make golf EXPENSIVE and he thinks that's the ONLY way to build high quality golf courses.

[T_MacWood]

Jim
Who said Fazio disparages Golden Age architects? How would you characterize his attitude toward A&C architects and do you agree with him?

[Brad Klein]

Jim, it's not so much that Fazio disparages classical design as much as he ignores it or misconstrues it.

During the phone interview he gave on open microphone at Raters Cup 2001 at Victoria National GC you heard him profess ignorance as to what classical design was. In his book, he gives it a backhand comment, that there's no point "copying" old golf holes. He repeatedly talk about designing for owners and clients, not for golfers.

Fazio is so concerned with building grand, beautiful,impressive golf holes out of bad ground - which, by the way, he does a wonderful job of. But just to listen to him or read him (Cal Brown's words) you get no sense at all that he has any appreciation of what classical design, shot-making, ground game principles were/are about. In this regard he is a lot like many of his contemporaries, but unlike them he's so confident in his talents as a builder that he doesn't mind expressing this willful indifference to tradition.

What really scares me about Fazio is that I can't tell whether this is a conscious strategy, or whether it's done through a kind of basic ignorance. He's so good building new stuff he just doesn't have to care. And his clients are so impressed with building and creating new monuments that they don't want to get their hands dirty with the dusty old past. What's really interesting about Fazio's work nowadays is how impressive they first look and how quickly they slide into indifference as they are bypassed by the next project he builds. If I were a course owner I'd be worried about this.

[ForkaB]

Geoffrey

You (and your 299 co-conspirators) are going to have to do better than that to convince me.  Both statements, while arguable, are defensible and not at all unexpected from someone at or near the peak of his profession (he is, whether or not you agree he should be .

Tom MacW

Geoffrey just implied what Jim said in terms of your first question, and as to the second question, I doubt if Tom F has a clue what A&C means, unless he is lurking here and/or posting as YTTseng.

[TEPaul]

Jim:

This is an excellent question on your part! I believe I do know where those statements are of Fazio's in his book. I think though that I won't try to find them right now and will only try to work from my recollections of them to see how accurate my recollections are. Then later I'll find them and post them here.

But like a lot of things on here and in the golf architecture world I think the way you present it (and what you say others are saying about Fazio) is a distortion of what Fazio said or intended to say. My recollection is that he did not "disparage"  what the old architects did at all. What he said was that in his opinion although some of it was very imaginative (and maybe even necessary back then for obvious reasons) that it would not be and is not acceptable in today's world of architecture.

I think that's what he said or intended to say and that's exactly why his attitude toward the older work and what's acceptable today sometimes infuriates certain people. In other words, where does he come up with a broad assumption like that? He's telling us in his book that he knows what today's golfer will and will not accept and certainly by implication he's saying that they won't accept some of that old architecture.

Obviously he's talking about blindness, lack of definition, the abandonment of types of quirk and things of that nature. Futhermore, Fazio is going around to these famous old classic courses and certainly some of those people who love those old courses are nervous as hell that he will then start redesigning away some of the very things that make those old courses unique.

Not only that but in his new construction work that attitude and assumption seems to be basically a follower mentality! Somehow the golfing public seems to be telling him what they'll accept and what they won't. At the same time these old classic courses (that he implies are not really acceptable in today's world of architecture) are still famous, respected and at the top of these lists. It makes a lot of people nervous that they will remain there only so long as they can remain as they are before Fazio gets to them and probably redesigns away their uniqueness and probably redesigns them right off those lists!

So I think that's what you're referring to. I think this is basically a bit like the age-old political question of does a politician lead his constituency (by offering them unique ideas) or does he follow them (by taking polls or making sop-like assumptions)?

In Fazio's case those that accuse him of the things you mention here believe he's in the position to offer golfers new and different things in architecture instead of making safe assumptions of what they'll accept or not!

My personal belief is that golfers will accept new and different things in architecture--actually I believe they will accept almost anything except probably outright boredom in architecture.

I think I also have the perfect example of something done by Coore and Crenshaw which it would be my belief Fazio would never think of doing or ever dare to do. I'll post that example later and it might show you why many people (certainly many on here) admire Coore and Crenshaw and don't have as much admiration for Tom Fazio. It might be the perfect example!

[T_MacWood]

Rich
If no one said it, isn't the question based a false premise?

I didn't ask Tom Fazio, I asked Jim Lewis his characterisation of Fazio's attitude - and Jim Lewis does lurk on this site. And I wouldn't sell TFazio short, his wife is art dealer (I believe she own an art galery) and he has been known to compare himself to FL Wright. How would you characterize Fazio's attitude toward A&C(Golden Age) golf architects?

[Lou_Duran]

I am near the finish of the Fazio book, and like Mr. Lewis, I haven't found the source of indignation that a number of posters here have about the architect's writings.  Contrary to Mr. Klein's characterizations,  I see repetitive reverential references to the masters.  Fazio goes into great lengths about playability and the importance of paying attention to the right side of the course because of the propensity of high handicapers, the majority of golfers, to go there.  He notes his preference for designing a course that is enjoyable for the most, a very MacKenzian attitude.  He discusses the need to challenge Love and Couples while still making the course playable and enjoyable for large number of golfers through the strategic placement of hazards.  Fazio describes the so called Augusta effect, but I didn't sense a normative tone.  He clearly recognizes the trend toward target golf and highly irrigated turf, but I picked-up that he too enjoys firm ground and he provides the opportunity for a ground game, particularly from the right side of the course.  That he strives to surpass his last project is hardly a damnable trait, and one which most progressive developers would find highly admirable.  We normally laud the bold person who in his effort to achieve pushes the envelope.  Indifference to tradition or ignorance?  Please!  No one reaches his stature by disregarding history or by being dense.  He apparently is higly adept at building courses, albeit very expensive ones, that people like to play, which in turn allow his developer clients to make money.  Is this bad?  While my experience playing Fazio courses is somewhat limited, I haven't noticed a major departure in his work from his writing.  Though I have not been overly impressed with the ones I have played, he seems to do what he says.      

[Tom_Doak]

I haven't bought Mr. Fazio's book, but if those quotes are his worst about the Golden Age, then I do think he's been misrepresented here.

Every designer wonders what the rankings would really be like if there weren't any names at the bottom.  I wonder if Tom Fazio would have more top-100 modern courses if they were done anonymously, or less.

Frankly, I wonder if any of the ranking committees could even publish a list without having the names to give them clues as to what to include.

[John_McMillan]

I don't have the exact quote (don't own the book), but there is a statement to the effect - "since we now know how to create good holes through earthmoving, the quality of the site isn't as important as the commitment of the client."  I'm not sure what the content of that statement is, other than Fazio likes to work for clients with REALLY deep pockets, but how does that differentiate him from any other architect (or consultant in any other business)?  The secret of Fazio seems to be that somehow he makes his clients feel that giving Fazio large amounts of money makes THEM feel special.  

[Ran Morrissett]

I agree with Brad and Jim, I would say that actions speak loud than words.

Take two scenarios: Hanse and Fenway and Fazio at ANGC, Oakmont and Riveria.

In the first regarding Fenway, Gil told me that they spent hours upon hours researching the course before they ever did anything. They accumulated a massive amount of old b&w photos. In large part due to this research, they were able to re-create the Tillinghast features in an exceptional and comprehensive manner.

Take Fazio at Augusta. According to his work there, he has shown no interest/understanding in MacKenzie's thoughts. At Riviera, his people did minimal research before beginning their work on the 8th hole. At Oakmont, there once were more than 100 bunkers than are presently there. As part of his work there, do you think that Fazio is going to thoroughly research the lost bunkering schemes at Oakmont to see if perhaps they should be brought back? I would hazard a guess that the answer is no.

By ignoring MacKenzie, Thomas, and Fownes, Fazio could hardly be considered to be paying them tribute. Indeed, he disparages them when he plants trees at Augusta or adds never before seen framing bunkers to the 8th at Riviera.

As the consultant to these clubs, it's a shame that he doesn't look to bring back lost features as opposed to adding his own.
If he wants to add his own features, why not stick to designing excellent new courses like Victoria National which are 100% his own?

Cheers,

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Disparaging, no way. Lacking humility, respect and the self-confidence to, as Crash Davis said in Bull Durham, "remember your cliches," absolutely. For an architect whose work is a often a very schlocky attempt to copy the old guys he is shrugging off, you'd think Fazio would at least preface a few of these comments with an "I'd like to think" or "perhaps" or some attempt to show an ounce of respect for architects who are not with the living and here to defend themselves.  But gosh, even Fazio's equivalent in the art world, Thomas Kinkade, would never be so desperate as to criticize Monet or Van Gogh, would he?

Oh, and before I forget, the recent comment on The Golf Channel about Augusta being a Jones design, and really not a MacKenzie design because he was hardly there, displayed great ignorance on Fazio's part. Three MacKenzie visits to Augusta were for several weeks each (according to the club's history), a book which Fazio apparently has not had time to read. I wonder how many of his projects Fazio can name where he spent a several weeks on site, multiple times?  

But to the topic at hand, here's a random sampling that apparently some might miss-read as reverence?

“I would agree in spirit with what MacKenzie said. The artistic touch is needed for the subtle adjustments and details we would want to see a first class golf design. But we’ve come a long way in this profession in seventy years. The artistic touch and feel for golfing situations will always be needed, but we’ve learned to make experience, education, and technology work for us in ways MacKenzie and his generation could scarecely have imagined.”
-Tom Fazio

In other words, I can do this stuff with a sketch pad and a fax machine!  

“there are more and better golf designers than ever in our history, and they’re building better products now than have ever been built before.” –Tom Fazio

There are certainly more designers than ever, but better? Do you really believe that Mr. Fazio?  

“When experts later this century look back and assess the past 100 years of golf architecture, their rankings will indicate that a majority of the premier courses of the twentieth century were designed in the 1990s.”
-Tom Fazio

Yep, they'll be talking about PGA National, Pinehurst #4 and Pelican Hill instead of The National, Pinehurst #2 and Somerset Hills.  

There is a concern is that these assertions will be repeated so many times by Fazio that they will come to be accepted (and repeated). That does seem to be Fazio's goal, and if you look at the famous clubs who allow his associates to consult, it appears to be working.

[T_MacWood]

Jim
Do you agree with his assessment of Pinehurst #2?

[BCrosby]

Jim -

It's not that Fazio disparages the Golden Age designers.  It's that he is dismissive of them.  He sees them as primitives; as designers that did not have the full palette of colors that the moderns have.  See Geoff's quotes above.

Because of the technological advantages of the moderns, for Fazio it follows that a Victoria National or a Wade Hampton will soon displace a Cypress or a Merion from the top 10.  Just a matter of letting the newer courses age in the barrel, as it were.  

Fazio is too bright to say that sort of thing explicitly, but he comes damn close.  

Thinking about the book after all these months, I recall a thought I had at the time.  To my knowledge, the Fazio book is the only one I've ever read that purports to be about golf course architecture generally but is illustrated with courses only by the author.

Fazio's views on cga didn't surprise me.  The book confirms what many of us already thought.  What surprised me about the book was the Fazio ego.

[Brad Klein]

Good point - Fazio's book is not about golf course design. It's about Tom Fazio's work, which is all he sees.

Chapter and verse:

p. 12, last paragraph: he reduces classical courses to holes that someone might want - or in his case, not want- "to copy"

p. 90: "But 'the old days' are different for everyone. For me, the old days were the 1960s"

pp. 98-99: manages to deal with Ross, Mackenzie [sic], Tillinghast, Thomas, Flynn, Crump and Wilson in one all-incompassing, meaningless statement

I find it astronishing that in a book on architecture there can be such a quick, dismissive account of the classics. It's like "whatever goes." Whoever one evaluates Fazio's design work today, his treatment of classic courses in this book is simply dismissive. Not one photo, not one example of a hole, no reference to a single book, no classic strategic principles, nor lesson about routing, bunkering, green placement or contouring.

The great issues of classical design are all construed as limitations that modern man has overcome and thus can now overlook.

[Monitor]

Jim Lewis, party of one. Now calling J-i-m L-e-w-i-s.

[Mark_Fine]

This is all a matter of interpretation and if you don't like Fazio you could easily view his comments as disparaging to the dead guys.  

I will say this, there is no question in my mind at all that most people on this site are name conscious!  They have preconceived ideas (whether it will be good or bad) about a golf course even before seeing it just because of who designed it.  If they don't care for the architect, they dewell on the negatives and miss and/or discount the positives.  If they like the architect, they do the opposite.  If you are a golf course rater (and we all are whether we want to admit it or not), that is not conducive to a sound objective review of a design!  

I think that is much of what Tom is getting at!  
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Oh, I don't know Mark...

I sort of like Tom Fazio's work pretty well but I think BCrosby and Brad Klein absolutely nailed it.  His comments ARE dismissive, and he only mentions the Golden Age designers at all to draw comparison to how much more adept modern designers (re: Fazio Design) are at using heavy equipment to shape and frame golf courses to their bidding.  

His comments come off about as subtle as Tot Hill Farms!    

 

[T_MacWood]

Mark
Name conscious? Can you give an example of another artistic endeavor (or any other popular endeavor) that is not name conscious? Are you not name conscious - are you ammune from human nature?

Its great that you are able to read the minds of this group and claim they have pre-concieved ideas, how did you attain this ability? How can you claim this group (as if we are a mindless gang) is dwelling on the negative, didn't the original question promote a negative response? It is great to see your assessment of this DG's attitude (as if it has a single view), but I'm still waiting for you to address the original post -- how do you judge Fazio's comments of Golden Age architects?

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
You may be right, but I don't take back my point.  I'm pretty sure that what I said is part of it.  My guess is the Golden Age guys at the height of their careers said many of the same things (maybe in different ways) about the architects that preceded them!  Were those remarks disparaging, maybe maybe not?  Look at some of the quotes from Macdonald!  

I'm really not defending Fazio, I just don't get too worked up about it!  I'm more concerned about the point I made, but even there, everyone has a right to their opinion.  I just discount some people's opinions when looking for thoughts to help make my own judgement when I know someone always shows a bias!
Mark  

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Part of your question I addressed.  Regarding reading minds, I can't do that, but I can read people's posts.  
Mark

[T_MacWood]

Mark
Could you answer the remaining questions you did not address? Other endeavors that are not name conscious and how you are immune?

How are you able to read these intellegent posts regarding this book and make blanket accusation that those involved have preconcieved ideas? What exactly did you read or did you enter this thread with your own preconcieved ideas?

What comments did Macdonald make?

Do you think Fazio's views of the Golden Age is comparable to the comments made about Tom Dunn and the other dark ages architects? Are the dark ages comparible to the golden age?

[Lou_Duran]

It never ceases to amaze me how seemingly intelligent people can view the same information and come away with such different conclusions.  Fazio's book is about his golf courses and his approach in designing them.  In all fairness, can we claim that he is burdened by an unhealthy ego because of this?

Fazio states that technology today provides opportunities to architects that were not available in the early part of the 20th century.  As a result, site characteristics are now less important in building a quality golf course.  Is this arguable?

He also notes that unlike earlier times, environmental regulations play a very large role today.  Those who have gone through the permitting process, particularly in a place like coastal CA are acutely familiar with this.  Would #7 at PB, and 15 and 16 at CP be allowed today?  I have some doubts.

What does appear to me, a relatively new comer to this site, is that this thing with Fazio has much more to do with personal issues than his philosophies on gca.  One prolific GCA regular on another thread asserts something to the effect that Fazio believes that if CP was built today it would not be considered to be a good course.  I don't know Fazio personally (I've met him once casually), but I am confident that he holds CP in extremely high regard.  I think that Fazio did state that having back to back par 5s and par 3s on a new course today would leave the architect open to criticism.
Is it arguable that the current consumer has higher expectations than his 1920s predecessor?

Fazio undertakes the modification of some "classic" golf courses at the behest of their owners.  Most on this site probably prefer that these courses remain untouched or brought back to the design intent of the original architect.  It is fair to criticize Fazio for his work product, but shouldn't the real blame be directed to the decision makers at these clubs?  For apparent political reasons those who should be held accountable are not, but we can sure let Fazio have it.  Judging by this and previous posts he is made out to be a self-centered ego-maniac who makes idiotic comments.  Sorry, but I beg to differ.    

 

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Let's not play games about "playing" favorites.  That debate has been discussed here before.  We don't need to repeat it.  We know it is an issue with some not necessarily those posting under this thread.  

How am I immune, maybe I'm not or maybe its from seeing a fair number of different courses.  I've seen good and bad from Tom Fazio so when I go to play one of his courses, I don't have my mind made up one way or the other.  Sand Ridge might be #55 or something on GD's list, but not in my book.  But that's not because Fazio designed it and if C&C designed it, I'd feel the same way.  

My intrepretation of "some" of Fazio's comments is that he thinks some people think all the Golden Age stuff is perfect.  That probably bugs him as it would most any modern architect or anyone in any profession.  I wonder what Woods "really" would say if asked how he thinks he'd do against Sarazen or some other icon of the past??  I hope you get my point.  

Does Fazio have a clue about what is great golf architecture, maybe maybe not.  The Golfweek guys tend to think so and so do the GD guys and most everyone else.  Frankly I guess I don't really care one way or the other.  I am concerned though when he is brought in to "restore" a classic design.  I do believe he has a different definition of "restore" than some of us might!  But what he designs on his own, however, is his business.  We can elect to not play it if we don't like it!  

Macdonald is quoted at one point as saying, "There is not a first rate course in America and he was going to change that".  A bit arrogent don't you think?
Mark

[T_MacWood]

Mark
I'm not playing games only trying to figure out your comments and who they were directed at -- it wasn't clear. Actually it was clear, but now you claim it wasn't ment to be directed to those on this thread.

Obviously Jim disagrees with your opinion that this debate should not be rehashed, perhaps you should direct your comments toward him. And obviously you felt it important to join in.

I think Fazio is frustrated by his lack of understanding, he has difficulty understanding why certain courses are appealing. He thinks he knows, but he has no idea why many of these older courses are interesting and one of the reasons are the odd hole or holes he dislikes. You may understand his viewpoint, but do you excuse it and/or defend it?

I'm not surprised when Fazio misrepresents the facts, but I'm surprised by your misquote of Macdonald. He said in 1897, "The ideal first-class golf links has yet to be selected and the course laid out in America." I don't think that was a very bold statement for '97. He later said he was "urged to carry out the idea of building a classical golf course in america, one that would eventually compare favorably with the championship links abroad and serve as an incentive to the elevation of the game in America." I wouldn't characterize that as arrogant. CB Macdaonld might have been an arrogant SOB, but he can't be accused of being out of touch with reality or not being a student of his art.

[Tags:]

Tags: