Fazio's GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTUE

[Ayn Rand]

 In my book "The Fountainhead" when self-proclaimed architectural genius Ellsworth M. Toohey asks Howard Roark what he thought of him, Howard said "I don't." Pure ego.
 Fazio has conditioned himself into a marketable commodity. It's his job. He's a gardener with a big budget and trust from a greedy land-owner businessman who knows that Fazio sells rounds. He constructs, he does not sculpt. Diluted ego.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

Exactly where was the "framing" Alister MacKenzie did, that you were referring to?  The only thing I can think of is the mounding he used to construct the foundation of his greens, and generally, that mounding is an integral part of the play.

I can assure you that Dr. MacKenzie never used the word -- much less devoted a chapter of his book to it.

[Tim_Weiman]

Bill McBride:

Tom Paul and Mike Cirba pretty well covered the points I might make about the two holes you mentioned. I found the 14th enjoyable as a Par 5 and the 15th thought provoking as a Par 4. My game tends to suffer when it comes to playing off downhill lies, so the left side was tempting from a tee shot perspective, but I always knew I might not really like the final result when I got to my ball.

The alternative is the macho go for the green with plenty of trouble.  So I like that....having to think a bit before taking my shot.

My biggest criticsm of the hole, strangely enough, is aethetics. We criticize Fazio for over emphasizing this aspect of design, but here is a hole that in my opinion is not the least bit attractive to look at.

Tom Doak:

I wonder if this business of "framing" is a matter of definition.

My definition is fairly simple. It's the presentation of the hole, i.e., what does the golfer see when playing his shot, how appealing to the eye is it, etc.  The architect may not have done anything other than have the good sense to put a green, tee or fairway in a certain position or view and left everything else alone.

So, to my mind, a great example of Mackenzie's "framing" is the slide you showed our group of the 13th at Cypress Point. It seems to me there are other examples at Cypress Point where the presentation of the hole is fabulous.

I think of presentation as something totally different than the playing characteristics of the hole.  At Sand Ridge, for instance, my favorite hole (the Par 3 #4) is not particularly attractive. The presentation or "framing" might even be considered poor. Perhaps that's why I've yet to meet a single member who shares my view that it is the best hole on the course. But,I stick to my guns. It is PLAYING the hole as opposed to LOOKING at the hole that has made me such a big fan.

Another example of a hole which is brilliant to play, but lacking in presentation is #8 at Ballybunion.  It's the perfect example of the difference between the two values.

Ideally, the architect can accomplish both.  It just seems to me that Mackenzie did this as well as anyone.

The DG is made up of the hard core, people who love golf architecture, especially things like "strategy".  Hence, what is appealing to the masses - Fazio's artistic skills - don't gain much respect here.  And that's fine.  Watching Fazio at work, I do think it quite fair to say that in his heart, he likes the artistic side, the presentation, etc.  He also senses this is what many clients prefer.

I just think presentation itself is not a bad thing, particularly when it can be accomplished with a thought provoking, strategic design.

One last thought on Mackenzie. It seems to me he had the good sense to BALANCE emphasis on aethetics with strategic design. I can think of no better example than the 14th and 15th at Crystal Downs. The presentation of #14 is beautiful.  By my definition, the "framing" is perfect. Now step to the 15th tee. The first time I saw it I thought Mackenzie ran out of energy, until about three seconds later when my education in golf architecture told me Mackenzie MUST be up to something.  Indeed, when I walked to the landing area I discoved one of my favorite fairways in the world.

That balance takes your mind through different emotions durig the course of a round, a ral testimony to what we love about Mackenzie.

[George Pazin]

Tim -

I found your description of "framing" to very interesting & thought provoking, but I have always felt that, in the context of Fazio & other modern designers, "framing" meant adding extraneous features that directed golfers in the "proper" direction as seen by the architect. I haven't read Fazio's book yet - I may put in a bid against Tom Paul:-) - but I have always inferred from the negative context in which the term "framing" is used, that it specifically did not involve strategy in any sense other than perhaps as a guide for the golfer. I agree that we are just talking semantics here, but I think this is why many on this site dislike "framing."

[Tim_Weiman]

George Pazin:

The question of definition as it pertains to "framing" is exactly the point I was trying to make in my comments to Tom Doak.

After reading your response, I would add the following:

It seems to me that there is both "active" and "passive" framing. Active framing, I think, is what you are refering to: the addition of features to a hole for the purpose of directing the attention of the golfer.  Passive framing, by contrast, has more to do with the simple presentation of the hole.

Sand Ridge provides two examples.  There is active framing on the Par 5 #3: more than twenty bunkers in the landing area of the second shot that rarely come into play. It is a text book example of what Fazio's critics have in mind, a hole I would love to change.

Passive framing is found on #11.  Fazio cleared out the area behind the green to expose - and I would argue - "frame" the hole with the wetlands.  The view slot concept is also deployed by permiting visibility to the #12 green.

Another example is the Par 3 #17. Again, Fazio uses the wetlands to passively "frame" the hole.  It doesn't make the hole better than the Par 3 #4, but I've noticed most members sure love it.

Tom asked for examples of framing by Mackenzie. My feeling is that Mackenzie was a master at what I've called "passive" framing.

I mentioned #14 at Crystal Downs: the presentation or "frame" creates a unique sense that heaven is off in the distance...at least it does to me.

What about #5 on the West Course at Royal Melbourne?  My impressions are only based on pictures, but its hard to imagine a more beautiful "frame".

Finally, I would cite #15 at Cypress Point.  Don't you just want to stand there looking at it forever?

[Bill_McBride]

Tom, Tim and Mike --- I have to agree with your points about #12, #14 and #15 at Pine Barrens.  I think I'll appreciate those holes better next time I play them. I still don't like #12 from the green tee, but the rest of the course was fine for me from those tees.  I'm a 13, not long but usually 225-240 with the driver.  I hit more 3-woods than drivers at Pine Barrens.  Experience will help with those holes. For example, it would never have occurred to me on #14 to hit the ball 45 degrees to the right to that semi-hidden upper fairway.  On #15 I hit the driver to the right fairway right on the screws, plugged the ball 212 yds from the tee which was right adjacent to the sign that said "213 yards to carry right fairway!" Looking forward to next time, but not as much as I'm looking forward to Valley Club of Montecito in April!

[jglenn]

Tom Doak, who is one of the best known writer's on golf, has recently been jeering at golf architects for attempting to make beautiful bunkers, but I don't think for an instant that he believes what he is writing about, for at the same time he talks about the beauties of natural courses.

  From a chapter entitled "The Importance of Beauty".

[Tim_Weiman]

David Kelly/Tom Doak;

After reading your comments I went back to look at what - and how much - Fazio had to say about "Framing".

Actually, the section on framing is about 250 words.

Robert Muir Graves and Geoffrey Cornish have more to say about the subject in their book "Golf Course Design', though they don't specifically use the word "framing" as best as I can remember.

A couple other related examples include:

Micheal Hurdzan in his book "Golf Course Architecture", Chapter 7 "The Beautiful and The Ugly".

George Thomas, "Golf Architecture In America", Chapter V. "Beauty and Utility".

My point is that one disappointing aspect of Fazio's book is that he really doesn't provide much detail on how he goes about "framing".  Whether you like the concept or not, I'd still rather have better, more detailed documentation of his actual thoughts on the subject. Georg Thomas simply does a far better job of this.

[jglenn]

Tim,

You forgot to add:

Tom Doak,"The Anatomy of a Golf Course", chapter 3, Esthetics in Golf Design.

"The greatest courses do not simply fall back on the natural beauty of the property, but are designed to enhance the beauty of the property by directing the golfer around the property to see it in all its aspects, and by adding features that blend into the landscape while helping to focus the golfer's view."

"MacKenzie also had a unique talent for finding a variety of backdrops for his green sites(...)"

"It is important to remember that the courses accepted today as classics were once considered radical.  Their artificial features have softened and blended into the landscape over sixty years of existence, to the point where few observers realize how much artificial work was done in thier construction"

I agree with what Tom wrote in his book.  I also agree with what Fazio wrote in his.

Is there some common ground here?

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeremy,

I didn't "forget". I just thought it better to cite other examples.

I also believe there is common ground.

The best courses and architects combine the virtues of strategic design and aesthetics.
Folks like Tommy N are absolutely right to point out when an architect has achieved one but not the other.

I spoke up in defense of "framing", aesthetics, presentation....whatever we call it in the spirit of Mackenzie:

"Another erroneous idea which is prevelent is that beauty does not matter on a golf course. One often hears players say they don't care a tinker's cuss about their surroundings, what they want is good golf".

In fairness, I don't think Tom believes aesthetics doesn't matter. He just wants to build courses that are also fun and interesting to play. I'm all for that.

[jglenn]

Tim,

I also think that Tom believes that aesthetics are important on a golf course.  So does Fazio, MacKenzie, and, I imagine, so do you.  We're all on the same page.

I'm just trying to understand why Tom Doak, and many others here, believes that framing is "bad".

I believe framing a golf hole, for whatever reason (aesthetics, safety, playbility) is often, but not always, very appropriate.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Let me just this about that:

Courses of yester-year look nothing like those of today. They were far more raggier/rough at the edges with nothing but between tee and fairway then tall rough grass and dirt paths. Using Cypress Point is not a good example because lets face it, could there be a more beautiful place on earth even without the golf courses? We seem to forget that MacKenzie took complete advantage of the site and I'm sure that no one would ever fault him for that. I think when Tom Doak made Shadow Creek one of his 31 flavors it was because of the process and intent in which it was designed, not because of the ground breaking strategic golf architecture. However, you don't try to repeat that same thing in the form of manufactured quarry walls like the Quarry at La Quinta and call it great golf. Other then four holes, it is a total artificial experience. Judging from pictures of Forest Creek, He has succeeded in producing something that relied on the exisiting features of the land and didn't have to go all out in creating an experience. Hopefully this is the same for Sand Ridge. It is not for Oak Creek, Meadows at Del Mar, Vintage Club, Pelican Hill. They are all "Framed" experiences and lousy ones at that.

Where Mr. Fazio gets off putting down classic courses in his book is so over the top for me and just dictates further the arrogance in design in defense of his designs. Yes, we may be on to another Golden Age of Golf Course Architecture, but it won't be because of Mr. Fazio, it will be because of names like Bill Coore, Ben Crenshaw, Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, and many many others who have defended the right to call their work "Inspired" by going out and proving it. Where do you think this inspiration comes from?

I have to say that if it came down to it, they had the choice to make a $100,000 a year working at a Burger Queen or not make a single penny working on a golf course doing what they do best, they would take the latter everytime.

They too also have families and are good men.

Let it also be known that these guys do not frame golf holes.

[T_MacWood]

Jeremy
I don't think anyone is saying aesthetics are not important. Every architect who has written on the subject of golf course design has acknowledged its importance. And Fazio sould be admired for his ability to create beautiful golf holes -- he has very good eye and an artistic flair.

Framing is another story and its current importance in modern design is a reflection of the influence of landscape architecture on golf architecture. It is the use of superfluous features to frame the picture in lieu of any strategic purpose which is criticized. And Fazio's glossing over strategy in his book and the fact that some of his courses have been criticized for not requiring much decision making that is unfortunate. Those books that you have quoted stressed the importance of utilizing natural features and the significance of strategic thought in design -- with so much emphasis on framing and creating 18 photogenic golf holes, both utilization of natural features and strategy are neglected.

[David Kelly]

What I object to about Fazio's "framing" is that he is designing too many holes that present only one route of play.  By defining a specific route on each hole, a lot of the strategy and thus enjoyment is taken out of the experience.  

I remembered reading a column by Geoff Shackelford before the Masters this year where he quoted Fazio about the changes he made to Augusta.  I went back and found the column http://www.golf.com/news/gol/arch/2000/04/15/955812803506.html

Here is the quote from Fazio at the top of the column that I totally disagree with,

"We wanted to do something to define the golf hole. Any time you design a course, you want to frame the hole. If you have a picture, and the frame doesn't work, then you get a new frame. If anything, I think the second cut may help the golfer line up some."

Shackelford then goes on to pretty much dismantle Fazio's "framing" argument.  Had I been more knowledgable and more articulant this is what I would have written myself.

[TEPaul]

I know this sounds pretty stupid but in my year and a half on this site I've pretty much drawn a total blank on the subject of "framing" and I don't think I have ever had a word to say about it unitl now.

Does it mean an architect finds something or builds something that is aesthetically pleasing for the golfer in the context of the hole or maybe "directs" him for something to aim at or whatever?

I'm sure not one to complain about a pretty picture or scene to look at-I'm sure I love it as much as the next guy. But for golf I think I might tend to like more the "presentation" or whatever you call it of a hole that really plays games on the golfer's mind. Where the golfer has to really apply himself and concentrate hard to get his own bearings and find his own aiming points. That may be why I like holes like #17 at Maidstone or #12 at Pine Valley where the holes are short and the green is way over here but you know you have to aim way over there and the eventual destination just keeps pulling you at it and playing with your mind and your aim. And I love holes like #8 Maidstone where you know the green is right behind that huge dune but you can just see a little piece of it over on the left and you know you can't go there so you just have to find a few blades of grass on the dune or a cloud or something to aim at and trust your aim. It pretty much made my summer to be down in one of those bowls on #16 at NGLA with absolutely nothing to aim at-I mean zero-not a cloud or a blade of grass-nothing and finally put the ball on the green.

But for pretty pictures who wouldn't love to just sit and look at some of the pictures or actual settings of the first eighteen holes in the "500 hundred Greatest Golf Holes"?

I mean #5 at Mid Ocean has some of the most beautiful basic lines and twists and turns  imagineable. Look at the far hill on the left and the way it twists with the far hill on the right and how the one on the left twists with the near shoulder on the right of the fairway and the way the line of the shore works with the other lines and takes the golfer's eye to the eventual destination.

Or #4 Banff Springs! A golfer definitely has to collect himself to concentrate on hitting a shot with all that drama in his vision. Or #9 at Royal County Down! I don't even know how to describe that overall setting except to just say Wow! Or #15 Cypress! I guess that's "framing" and it's exquisite!

But whatever the "framing" or the "presentation" I would rather it screw with my mind instead of actually lining me up and directing me because if I do hit a good shot on the kind I like I would feel like I did a better job of unraveling its riddle or that I'd done a good job of competing with it and that I'd won!

[Tim_Weiman]

TE Paul:

I share your view that a hole with a presentation that "screws with your mind" makes alot of sense.

#12 at Pine Valley does not do it for me, but the famous #10 at Riviera sure does. The big bunker on the right has some kind of magnetic appeal.  I know I'm better off playing further to the left, but I can't help it. I feel like I want to play over the big bunker, like I should be trying to play a career rather than sensible shot.

David Kelly:

Likewise, I agree with the argument you and Geoff make.

But, I'm also reminded of the experience I had with a knowledgeable caddie at Whistling Straits.  He argued that very few golfers ("maybe 2-3 percent") recognized some of the strategy that Pete Dye built into some of the holes.

Thus, I suspect, presentation, framing, aesthetics, etc., will continue to have mass appeal. It's alot easier to recognize than clever, strategic holes.

[JohnV]

Is it possible we're talking about two kinds of framing here?  One kind is the larger framing of a hole, which is created by the trees, hills, mountains or whatever that lie behind or around the hole, while the other kind is a bunch of man-made mounding that helps with the player visualize the green/fairway.  I think that Mackenzie used the first kind supremely.  As has been pointed out by others, the 18 holes at Cypress are all framed in unique ways.  The other kind of framing is the man made kind around the green or on either side of the fairway is the kind that most of us don't like.  Containment mounds are a form of framing.

I don't get the impression that Fazio rewards the player who takes the harder/more strategic route like older architects did.  Reading the write on Highland and Roaring Gap there were holes where a player challenged a creek or OB and got rewarded.  I don't see that kind of thing in many of the pictures in Fazio's book.

One of the more interesting statements he makes is that a course today had to have 18 excellent holes today because today's golfers would immediately see the weak ones and use them to criticize the course.  This is why he thinks that today's courses are better than yesterdays.

On page 68, "In the so-called 'classic' era, designers picked ideal sites whenever possible where golf holes could be easily fit into interesting terrain, but even these ideal sites often had flat or unattractive areas that couldn't be avoided.  That's one reason we find a few ordinary holes on some of our most famous courses.  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.'  In other words, golfers didn't like one or two holes.  The challenge of the 1990s has been to build golf courses that have no weak holes."

One of the more interesting parts of the book was the Appendix with the evolution of golf course construction costs from 1960 to 1999.  He says that a course today costs $3.8 to $7.6 million with substantial increase on unique sites vs $190,000 to $380,000 in 1960.  Interesting breakdowns of numbers.

My final take is that I'm glad that Tom Fazio and Rees Jones are around and build such beautiful golf courses.  Those who love the beauty of the courses can go there and stay away from the ugly, flawed ones we all love.

[Tim_Weiman]

JohnV:

One of my very favorite courses to play, Prestwick, doesn't have many, if any, views I would call beautiful. You might even say it's ugly at first glance.

But, what a charm to play!

[BCrosby]

Been away for a couple of days, so I missed out on the thread above.  I think the discussion got off the track a little.

The problem with Fazio is not that he is concerned with framing (or setting or beauty or course aesthetics generally).  All good cga worry about those things.  The problem with Fazio is that once he has solved the framing puzzles, he thinks he has completed his main architectural task.  Based on his book, it is hard not to conclude that Fazio thinks building beautiful courses is the measure of a successsful design.

MacK, MacD, Ross and others worried about course aesthetics too, but only as a part of a larger goal, which was building interesting, strategic golf courses.  And when they had to chose between pretty and strategic, they almost went with strategic.  

As for TE Paul's kind offer to buy my copy of Fazio's book at 60% off retail - I have an even better deal for you.  Just because I like your face, I'll give you my copy (free shipping, of course) when I receive a copy of your famous Gulph Mills history.  

[TEPaul]

BCrosby:

Done! Sorry about the delay of the GMGC booklet. I had a hard time get what remains out of the club, but I have a few now and will send them to those who asked.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I think it was Jim Muarry who described Lytham & St. Annes as looking like a vacant lot in Cleveland.  
Hey, it's an acceptable and very humourous observation!
Still, I'd choose a game at Lytham & St. Annes over ANY one of Fazio's "beautifully" designed courses, anytime.
With that, I prefer strategic and interesting golf holes over "pretty" ones; no matter what.

I haven't see the Fazio book yet -- nor do I have a desire to read it -- but it sounds like he discussed "framing" holes while merely glancing over the topic of "strategy"?

Also sounds like the man may have accurately written his legacy in this seemingly worthless "coffee table" production.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I'd love to see it if you have any extras.  Thanks.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff;

I think you are doing yourself a disservice by essentially refusing to read Fazio's book.  Whether you agree with him or not, it is always of educational value to listen to opposing views, even if only to sharpen your own observations.  After all, the guy IS the most popular architect of our time, for better or worse.

However, you make a very good point with your Lytham observation, and I have to wonder about this focus on "beauty".  My own view is that sometimes beauty, especially artificially created beauty, is often focused on and created to the detriment of "character".  

Is The Old Course beautiful?  Yes, but only through eyes that look beyond the apparent.  

Some of the most memorable courses I've played could hardly be called beautiful in a traditional sense, yet managed to integrate themselves into their surrounding in a way that they were seamless extensions of the surrounding landscape...whether that landscape included forests, oceans, towns, airports, industrial parks, farmlands, high-rises, whatever!  That variety is one of the most fascinating parts of the game, and attempts to impose cookie cutter holes that are incongruous to the landscape most times stick out like the sore thumbs that they are....to use Tom Paul's phrase, "they appear to be air-lifted onto the site".  

Give me a course truly integrated into its surroundings...beautiful or not...anytime, over a course with pretty framing but the depth of Pamela Anderson Lee.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Pamela Lee Anderson might not have much depth although I would argue that if she is standing and facing you she does appear to have a good deal of depth. However, no matter how shallow she may be she's not going to go out with you if you don't get her name right.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff,

Most people here would agree with your preference of strategic and interesting over "pretty" - myself included.

But, in my golf travels I've found this to be a minority opinion.

What's your experience?  Have you found that most people prefer "pretty"? If so, why?

[Tags:]

Tags: