[MAC]

Lou:

Where is Dallas National going up?  If I had to guess it would in far-north Dallas (near the Stonebriar).  Please let me know.  Thanks.

[John_McMillan]

One feature of Cypress Point that strikes me as a "well-routed" course is the diversity of holes the course contains - holes that play in and out of the trees; in and out of the dunes; away from, towards and along the Pacific Ocean.  The feature of Sypglass that strikes me as poorly routed is the lack of variety - 4 holes in the dunes, the rest in the pines.  

The Fazio course I have played is Sand Ridge outside Cleveland, which strikes me as a well-routed course.  The dominant physical feature of the course is the wetlands area in the middle of the course, and the holes play towards, away from, along and over the Wetlands.  There are different views of the wetlands area from many holes, and the views have a large variety.  I don't think that Sand Ridge is a perfect course, but one of its imperfections is not its routing.

[Tim_Weiman]

Chris:

At least I now have some idea what your complaints about Fazio's work are.

What would help, however, is to share some specific ideas about opportunities Fazio missed.

Let me give an example from Sand Ridge.  Number seven is a very good but not great dogleg left 445 yard par 4.  What would have made a big difference, in my opinion, is a different location for the green. I would have moved it left and further down the hill.  Doing so would have created a longer, more dramatic and more strategic hole. Even better, the transition to the next tee would have been improved by avoiding a long walk.

All very good, except that planning permission could not be optained due to wetlands considerations.

Still, isn't it more fun to discuss specifically what might have been done?  Who knows, maybe if you had communicated a few ideas during design and construction, the course might have turned out better.

As for your comments about the beautiful views from #16 tee, I'm wondering if you've ever taken a couple hours, sat by the tee and listened to the reaction of players standing on the tee.  Is the hole a success from a marketing perspective?

I've never heard anyone say the intent at Pine Hill was to build a "really exceptional" course.  Weren't they TRYING to build your typical upscale daily fee course?

[Lou_Duran]

Tom M and Patrick M:

I understand that you are skeptical about the availability of quality golf sites in and around major metropolitan areas.  What  remains in most large cities is either undevelopable for most uses, or is located in such bad neighborhoods that financing is impossible.  For the most part, golf courses are relegated to floodplains (and the Corp of Engineers is even clamping down on how much dirt you can move in these) and topographically severe sites.  Some golf development has taken place on dump sites and quarries, hardly the type of ideal land to develop an optimally routed masterpiece.  I am sure that the two of you can cite a number of exceptions, but that is what they are- exceptions to the rule.  When advancements have been made in nearly every field, to what do you attribute the decline in routing skills which you suggest afflict contemporary architects?  Do you think that Fazio, Nicklaus, and the Joneses are too busy (only interested in money)?  Or are they just low on horsepower, but great marketeers?

Tommy N.

When I see Mr. Fazio next time I will make sure to pass on your regards.  Without a doubt, this will make his day.

Mac:

Dallas National is located in the southeast quadrant of I-30 and Loop 12.  It is easily accesible from most points in the Metroplex.  The neighborhood is questionable, but the site is great for a developer with deep pockets and a great imagination (I suspect that it is by far the most expensive course ever built in this part of the world).  

[Mike_Cirba]

Chris Hervonchon,

I share your disappointment with Pine Hill.  To his credit, Tom Fazio did not try to creat a course that looked like Pine Valley, because I'm sure he knew that was a no-win situation.  

However, in my best dreams I was hoping for something as good as World Woods Pine Barrens, only on better, more interesting land.  Sadly, it's not even as good as World Woods Rolling Oaks.

Yes, there are some good holes, but it's a very awkward, unwalkable routing that isn't even a pleasant ride in a cart.  I was mystified at how banal most of the holes were, and don't even include it in my top 5 or 10 public courses in the state, unfortunately.

Lou Duran,

You mentioned the amount of money going into building the new Fazio course in Texas.  That seems to be the standard of most of his jobs.  

From what you've gathered, is the idea to create something that really fits into the site and takes advantage of the natural attributes, topography, and scenery of the native region, or to transplant (airlift) something that might be found in the hill of North Carolina, ala Shadow Creek?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lou Duran,

I thought I identified the reasons in my earlier post.  Neither of the items you listed is amongst them.

Denial of Legacy, the need for Individual creativity, and Ego.

[Lou_Duran]

Mike:

The Dallas National site is rather unique to this part of Texas in that it is primarily high ground with numerous hills and small valleys.  There aren't many flat spots on the site, and those that mother nature put there, the architect has altered.  As you know, Tom Fazio is not bashful about the size of his budget or the amount of dirt that he needs to move.  He told a group of us that early on in the construction process, the developer was worried about the rather ordinary terrain for one of the par 3s.  With a smile, Fazio recounted that $800,000 of dirt work later, his client is no longer concerned about that particular hole.

I do believe that Mr. Fazio has designed a course which takes advantage of the natural features of the site.  The high cost is attributed to the developer's desire to create a statement course and to the site's shortcomings (rocky terrain, extreme topography, and the need to import large amounts of top soil and clean fill material).  The course is routed over 400 acres, with 8' concrete cartpaths.  Three types of zoysia were used for the fairways, roughs, and tees (all sodded), which along with the native areas will give the course some really neat color contrasts.  From everything that I saw, the developer is extremely pleased with how the course is turning out.  If it was walkable and I could justify a six figure initiation fee, I would be first in line to join.  I think that the golf course will be superb.  

   

[Chris_Hervochon]

Mike Cirba-
You are very very correct.

Tim Weinman-
It's very difficult to give you a fair perspective of what could have been done with that site.  I can't tell you what I would have done differently, because, quite honestly, I would not have done anything similar to what Fazio did.  The main reason being is because the tees and greens are sooooooo far apart.  Trust me, you really can't comprehend how far they are apart until you walk the course yourself.

As a marketing ploy, I would venture to say the 16th was quite successful.  Everybody I have talked to has said how beautiful it is, but I have never once heard somebody say it was a great hole except for the view.

I do know, for a fact, that they geared that course toward being a top 100 facility.  I talked to management, as well as to the guy that gave us the tour during construction, and their comments were all the same.  They spoke of how they wanted it to be "world class" and "top 100".  They even said they were going to make walking allowed anytime so as to get the maximum amount of points for their rating.  However, they have since cut back on the walking, I would assume because it is just so impractical.

I tend to think it is impossible to discuss what could have been done, because I think the whole routing is not so good.  Therefore, personally, I would not have routed that course ANYTHING like what was laid out.  What I would have done, I have no idea.  I would need a topo map and a lot of time to walk that property in it's virgin state.  I am playing there with my dad tomorrow, so maybe I can give you further insite then.

[TEPaul]

Personally, I agree with the statement. "The lost art of routing."

The capability and efficiency of modern machinery and probably the use of the computer too has made the technique of hole designing and routing much different, I'm sure, than it used to be when designers had to work with the natural land just because there really weren't many options to doing that.

I think that going out on a piece of property and really trying to do a competent routing (all of it), even for an amateur, is about the best specific education you can have on the subject of golf course architecture--that way you really start to see the pieces, all of them, and how they fall into place--down to the smallest detail. As they say, routing really is the backbone of it all. Even if you don't understand construction techniques, drainage etc and other basic things about course designing, routing is the place to start to find out how and why they all apply as they do.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rick Shefchik,

Here's the story on the long walk between 12 and 13:

1.- Giants Ridge owned about 100 acres of useable golf course land when they decided to build the course.  They and their land planner pretty well locked into using the existing ski chalet as the clubhouse site, meaning forced carries over the wetlands on  no. 1 and 10. - before we were hired.  They also wanted to reserve about 30 acres near what is now the 12th for homesites that might have been holes.

2. - There was a 40 acre tax forfeit parcel that is now holes 4 and 5. The cart path behind 3 green actually crosses a 4 way property line, and the land north and southeast of those holes is the Superior National Forest, requiring an act of Congress just to use about 8 square feet of land for the path.

3. - The National Forest Service does not sell land, although Giant's Ridge tried. Even if they would (at one time, GR proposed buying and trading some eagle habitat just north of the course on a two for one basis) it would have taken over 10 years to acquire - not so good when political terms last 4 years and the mucky mucks want to get credit for something good, not let some guy elected two terms later go to the grand opening.

4. - LTV Steel owned all other surrounding land, but, as you know, it was not closely connected.  However, Highway 138 was scheduled to be paved, and moved up the hill right about where the path is now, leaving a cart nice drive along the lake. Will happen someday, but not yet.

Thus, we had a state agency wanting to build a course, and the choice of either building one with an admittedly long walk, or not building one.  The team dedided to build one with a long walk.  They fought several lawsuits as it was relating to various environmental issues, like the thought to be scarce, but actually quite abundant marsh marigold.  After a year and half of these types of things, the feeling was we want to build if after we won!  Admittedly, no one really figured that cart use would be anything under 100%, nor did they want it too, given how much the lawsuits added to the cost of the course.

Hasn't hurt the popularity of the course, as they play to capacity, and turn away almost capacity crowds each year.  Its more impressive (economically, at least) when you consider how poorly competing resort courses in Brainerd are doing.  I know the flaws, but we must have done something right. It raises the issue, does absolutely every course have to be walkable as the number one criteria?  Would be nice, but there is a niche for cart courses.

And no to those who may ask, I never considered walking away from the project.  My job is to give them the best course I can on the land they have.

Better news on the routing front for Giants Ridge II - The Quarry, coming soon.  Its on a compact site, and my instructions were to make it walkable. No tee (other than 16 to 17, where you must go under 138 in a tunnel) is more than 30 yards from the previous green, and many are closer, to the point where some wonder if there will be distractions.  Where the cart path takes a circutitous route, we have cut direct walk paths to the next tee.  

Set in an old sand quarry, the course will be as different from the first one as I can make it, and have some dramatic elements (just so you can get a visual picture) of Pine Valley and even Tobacco Road, with a few holes having 30 plus feet deep bunkers, old scars from quarrying operations.  We think it will be a bit harder, although fairways are extremely wide.

For real, not word, images you can catch my more or less monthly articles on CYBERGOLF.COM, or see the old installments on my web page. An early installment deals with how I routed the course.

40 miles north in Tower, I am designing a course for Fortune Bay Casino.  Except for crossing the main entry road for advertising, again, each tee is a stones throw from the previous green, although we a wiggling a few holes around solid rock right now. So, Minnesota Golfers rise up and walk!

Just one example of how environment, politics, budget, housing etc. affect the modern routing, and as some have mentioned, probably a lot more complicated than in the golden age - in most cases.  BTW, I did 26 routings, about standard for me, to get to the final.

While carts is an issue, I would also venture that RTJ's routing was influenced by desire to get more length, as well.  Probably on the "old standby" 150 Acre site touted back then as "adequate". I also think its a good guess that he tried to be different from Pebble by putting the ocean holes first.

The problem with Ran's premise is that you can always (and usually do) compare selected courses just to make a point. I do not agree that the art of routing is lost.

Admittedly, Fazio knows that his clients hire him for a specific look, so on a given site he may not work as hard as others.  On a site like Dallas National, though, I suspect her worked pretty hard because of difficult rock conditions, or it would have easily exceed even his budgets.  For someone like me, who can't correct mistakes with earth or money, finding natural holes is as important as it ever was. At Giants Ridge, I moved less than 160,000 CY of earth, and had fairway cuts on only 1, 3, 10 and 12.  The others follow the existing grade, mostly because of the underlying rock.  

Jeff

[Tim_Weiman]

Chris:

Thanks for your comments.

Ran's original reference to Spyglass got me to thinking how difficult it is for us to discuss alternate routing plans for a site, regardless of the site.

We can criticize what we don't like.  Fair enough. But our format doesn't allow us to  propose detailed alternatives.

I just wish there was some way we could.

[Mike_Cirba]

Lou Duran,

Thanks for providing more info about the new Tom Fazio course in Texas.  I hope it turns out well, because I think Fazio is a gifted architect who clearly has the ability to design excellent golf courses.  Unfortunately, I think as he's taken on more and more work, his batting average now hovers around .200.  

On thing that seems to hold true is that a great golf course is built in one of two ways.  

1) The architect spends an inordinate amount of time on site attending to the last 20% detailed work in an effort to get EVERYTHING right.  Cases in point include Pine Valley and Casa de Campo.

2) The architect hires incredibly talented associates who follow example #1.  Some of Donald Ross's people like Walter Hatch are the best example of this phenomenon.

Tom Fazio used to take a max of a handful of jobs a year, because even back then he truthfully admitted that there was no other way to design quality courses.  Now, his ubiquitous style runs counter to this philosophy, and when you add in the work his firm is doing to "restore" classic courses, I just think he's stretched way too thin and the results are self-evident.

Going back to an earlier post of yours, I'd like to hide behind my semi-anonymity on the Internet   and offer that following response to your contention that people are using this forum to besmirch the professional reputations of people like Tom Fazio.  

Lou, would you agree that golf course architecture is an art form?  If so, why should an artist who is blessed with the use of hundreds of acres of God's green earth as his canvas somehow be sacrosanct from meaninful, thoughtful criticism??  

Golf courses cost Millions of dollars to build and developers sometimes take on these projects at considerable personal financial risk.  Those costs eventually make their way into the game in general, and to each of us individually.

If an architect is ego-driven, and more concerned about creating monuments to themselves than to perpetuating the game, then I don't see how we could do otherwise but to speak up.

If a friend of mine tells me he's coming to NJ, and asks about playing Pine Hill at $150, should I tell him my honest opinion, or should I be concerned that I'm offending the architect?  

I find it ironic that many of the best courses built in the past 25 years have also been among the cheapest to build.  Yes, great sites have something to do with it, but there have been plenty of great sites that have been hampered by the overarching hand of modern architects.  

No one here means any personal offense.  We simply have a passion for what golf architecture can be at its greatest, and we hope to see more of it.  Personally, I don't care if the new course down the street is designed by Fazio, Jones, Dye, Nicklaus, Doak, or whomever....I just want it to be a great golf course that utilizes natural attributes and provides pleasurable enjoyment for the greatest number of people.  

[Lou_Duran]

Mike:

I am in complete agreement with the last two sentences of your post.  And sure, you should feel totally free to tell your friend and anyone else who will listen what you think about any golf course.

Anyone who produces something for public consumption is subject to criticism.  Being critical of someone's work is fine in my book, but the business of bashing the individual and speculating about personal motives is not.  Statements such as being "ego-driven" and "creating monuments to themselves" is what I am talking about.

I consider golf course architecture to provide some means of creative expression, though certainly not in the sense of art as painting or sculpture.  Golf is a game and games are to be enjoyed primarily through active participation.

Because golf courses have become very capital intensive, the commercial aspect is extremely important.  The fact that Fazio is in great demand and his courses seem to do very well financially suggests that he is meeting the needs of many, and perhaps doing his part in perpetuating the game.  I was also under the impression that he is known for the high finish/attention to detail quality of his work.  Aren't his courses unusually "pretty"?  But I am sure that this is not the type of art that you are talking about.

As I stated earlier, my experience with Fazio courses is limited.  I am not an apologist for the man, but I would like to see the discourse on this website to get beyond bashing people whose work we don't favor.  Analyze and criticize the work, but keep personal acrimony to a minimum.  As and example, I thought that Ran's PB thread was very interesting and thought provoking.  I still don't think that PB is worthy of its high ranking, but the discussion has forced me to focus on things pertaining to architecture, and I've come to realize that my negative experience with other issues clouded my evaluation of the course.

In my relatively short time on GCA I've learned a number of things about golf, gca, and agronomy.  This site has also rekindled my interest in playing some of the best courses in the world, hopefully in the company of some of you here.  On the downside, the name calling and negativity is distracting, and though I can block it out, I fear that this sort of thing keeps some serious minded individuals from participating.  Just my opinion.  
       

[Ttim Weiman]

Mike Cirba;

I agree with almost all that you said in your post to Lou Duran.

But, I also think Lou is expressing a feeling some people have about many posts concerning Tom Fazio.

I think Lou is suggesting there is a difference between "bashing" and "criticism".

I agree.

"Bashing" exists when the comments are either personal in nature or they simply lack sufficient content for the reader to learn much about the course or architect being discussed.

"Criticism" exisits when the focus is on the architectural features of a course and logically related topics (such as project costs) and when one learns something new even if the points made apply only to the specific venue being discussed.

If someone says "typical Fazio", I feel like I haven't learned a thing and it's just useless "bashing".

If someone tells me they don't like the bluegrass rough at Sand Ridge (John Macmillan called it "chinese water torture"), I consider that "criticism" and quite fair indeed.

Often it seems that comments on Fazio fit into the former; I'd much rather hear more of the latter.

In sum, "bashing" is boring. "Criticism" is at the heart of what this discussion group is all about.

[Chris_Hervochon]

Tim-
Very eloquently said.  I tend to think the type of "criticism" you are talking about is the basis for this entire site.  I am with you on the statement that "bashing" isn't cool.  However, contrary to that statement, I do think there are similarities to all of Fazio's work, or any architects work for that matter.  Some good, some bad.  Thereby, I would not necessarily consider it "bashing" to criticize the work that is consistent from project to project.

[Mike_Cirba]

Lou,

Just to clarify, my choice of the terms "ego driven" or "creating monuments to themselves" wasn't necessarily meant to be associated with any particular architect, and I was quite careful not to do so.  

But I ask you, Lou.  Have you ever played a golf course where you felt that those terms might apply?  I certainly have.

I've also felt those terms have very accurate applicability when I see a classic course utterly and irrevocably changed with the introduction of modern concepts, incongruous looks, or modern notions of fairness and playability as has happened often in the past and continues to happen on a pretty large scale.

Yes, in many of those cases the clubs or courses themselves bear some degree of responsibility for the finished work.  But, in most cases I think Green Committees and clubs are not nearly as knowledgeable as we might like to believe, and rely heavily on the architect (who, after all, is supposed to be the "professional"...particularly one with a BIG established name in the industry) for advice on how to make their course a "_______" (insert phrase here - i.e. more challenging, better, tougher, greener, etc.) one.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Chris:

I understand your point about consistency from project to project (whether it be good or bad).

It's just that when people say "it's a Ross course" or "typical Fazio" I feel I haven't learned anything unique about the course.

Maybe there isn't anything unique.

But, if there is, I just wish people would tell me, especially if they think it is worth going out of my way to see.

[John_McMillan]

Tim,

Just to clarify my comments about the "Chinese water torture" -

I thought the rough hazard at Sand Ridge - the bluegrass which presents a difficulty to recovery shots - in combination with the lack of other visually imposing hazards, created an interesting physchological effect on play.  It wasn't that shots were lost in any particular location, but that one seemed to lose about a quarter shot on EVERY hole, that created a frustration in playing the course.  

I also didn't consider it a criticism of Sand Ridge, but rather, since it was apparent that someone had sat down and planned the effect, that it was an interesting feature of Sand Ridge's design.

[Mike_Young]

I do not think routing is a lost art.
But, if 350 courses are built this year, I bet that the landplanner/developer has as much or more say on the routing than the architect in at least 250 of these.  I have had many projects where the developer did not approach the GCA until after he had his basic land plan from the landplanner.  You might say in an idealistic world that the GCA could say no to the project but it doesn't work that way.  It seems that the main thing many landplanners/developers want more than the qualities of a good routing are the views of the course from the lots.  And a high lot count.  Some of you will say " convince them otherwise".  Well,  if the architect is a "signature he can do this or refuse the project but many of us can't.  So we argue and do the best that can be done so that we can remain in pursuit of the "ideal project".

The same element(housing development that has driven so much of the growth) is the same element that has destroyed routing in many peoples eyes.  In my opinion the ability to design great golf holes by finding the holes and driving to them thru cartpaths is a totally different ability than connecting 18 holes where you walk off of one green and on to the next tee.  That takes much more.  But the chances that most of us have to do that are few and far between.  And in my opinion that is the  element that the average golfer can't describe when trying to tell you why he likes a particular course over another.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Young,

I completely understand the restraints you describe and know that many times architects are simply left with the land that has already been designated as "the golf course".  It's a necessary evil, given the economics.

However, some of the modern courses being discussed here (i.e. Pine Hill, Tattersall) are in fact, "core" courses, where housing or other development is not a consideration.  

[Tim_Weiman]

John:

My game is so bad right now that I'm very sympathetic to any criticism of the blue grass rough at Sand Ridge!

Is the combination of the blue grass and lack of imposing hazards interesting?

If you are looking to study a course that plays tougher that it looks, then the answer is "yes".  For most players, that "chinese water torture" effect eventually takes its toll.

[Lou_Duran]

Mike:

When I played Texas Star, Keith Foster's course in Euless, I was extremely disappointed that such a great tract and a generous budget yielded what for me was a very quirky, frustrating course.  I have no idea of the status of Keith's ego, and any assumptions that I would make about what guided him on this job would most likely be wrong.  I was diasppointed with the first Fazio course at Barton Creek (Foothills?), but a potential character flaw in the designer never crossed my mind.

Regarding changes to classic golf courses, I too have concerns that some of these don't blend in well with the remainder of the course (e.g. Inverness), and others further reinforces a singular style of play (e.g. ANGC).  But I don't loose a lot of sleep over it because the member/owners have a lot more riding on the decision than I do, and I suspect that in most cases, they arrive at the correct one.  Also, these clubs have deep pockets, and most ill advised modifications are not irrevocable when ample funds are available.
     

[Mike_Cirba]

Lou,

I understand where you are coming from in your contention that a bad course or routing or overdone architecture is not necessarily evidence of a character flaw of the architect.

That is why I have generally kept my comments about the work itself and not the personalities involved.  However, I would ask you to read Tom Fazio's book, particularly the section in which he expresses a combination of envy and disdain for classic courses, use of natural features, and the Golden Age architects involved.  Furthermore, when he makes statements (as he did recently in connection with Victoria National) that he'd soon have 100 Top 20 courses, I think it provides some indication of his mindset and fairly healthy ego in approaching his work.

Truthfully, I have no problem with this.  If he wants to build a million $40 million courses that developers want and the game will support, more power to him.  I also think that some degree of advanced ego probably comes with the territory, and actually might be a necessary ingredient in providing artistic greatness.  I can't imagine that the job of golf course architect and the oversight, coordination, negotiation, and other skills needed are found in shrinking violets.

That being said, a person who claims greatness also should recognize that with such high-visibility work comes inevitable criticism.  To his credit, I have yet to hear Tom Fazio directly say his critics are full of crap.  Instead, he seems rather happily impervious to any criticism whatsoever, although his work at revising classic courses may change that, because his track record is certainly worth critical review.

It's nice to think that any ill-advised changes that he makes to classic courses can just be "undone" by deep-pocketed memberships.  Perhaps you're correct.  Perhaps nothing of value will be irretrievably lost and whole fairways at ANGC can be returned to their original contours, or holes like the 4th can just be duplicated on adjacent land.  

After all, it's just dirt.  Move enough of it, take care to frame the surroundings, and who's to know the difference?

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

From the very limited exposure I've had to Tom Fazio, I would say he doesn't come across as "ego driven" or interested in building monuments to himself.

He does seem focused on running a successful business, capable of working with his clients and he is certainly represents the antithesis of minimalist archtecture.  

In fairness, I haven't seen Fazio "claim greatness".  I think he just sincerely believes classic architecture is overrated while modern architecture does not yet get fair recognition.

[Rick Shefchik]

Jeff Brauer --

Thanks for the detailed explanation about the back nine routing at Giants Ridge. I figured there were extenuating circumstances, but I didn't realize they were as complicated as you described.

As I'm sure you could tell from my post, I'm a great admirer of Giants Ridge; to me, it exemplifies what can be done in a state where most non-Minnesota golfers would assume the only playable courses are in the Twin Cities area (try Northland Country Club in Duluth, gentlemen; a Donald Ross design first opened for play in 1899.) Having played Fazio's World Woods Pine Barrens course this March, I came away thinking, "Nice course. Reminds me of a half-dozen I've played in Minnesota, with no exceptional difference in quality."

I'm very happy to hear that walking will be encouraged on your two new courses. If they are as good as Giants Ridge, you'll have further enriched northern Minnesota golf.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()