[Walla Walla]

I admit that there is a sameness to the Tom Fazio designs that I have played. Isn't there also a sameness to the work most great architects? I wonder why Fazio gets such a bad rap on this site. If it is for what he appears to be doing in Philly I get it. There is much more troubling work being done today by such note architects as Art Hills and Rees Jones.
Also, I noticed in one thread someone had trouble giving Mr.Fazio credit because some of the bunkering on his early 90s courses was done by Mike Stranz. We seem to have no trouble giving him blame if Feely or BelJan make a bad call on a site. Before you consider me a nut I do admit that I will prefer a Dye course to a Fazio. Why? I think Mr.Dye isn't afraid to be creative,(sorry Mr.Doak I have only seen two of your designs in Michigan and can't give you credit for Black Forest because we all know that Mike De is responsible for it's wonderful bunkering :> ) )
My points
Tom Fazio's work that I have seen is pretty good.
The "name" architect is responsible for the work; bad or good.
What I've seen from Fazio (best to worst)
Pine Barrens
Black Diamond
Lake Nona
the original 18 at Pelican's Nest
PGA at St.Lucie
the Quarry
Gateway
Treetops
Rolling Oak
Osprey Ridge
Bonita Bay East
Disney
Emerald Dunes
Windstar
I'm sure I'm missing some, but there all the same anyway.

[Mike_Cirba]

Walla,

Since I'm the guy who brought up Michael Strantz, please let me clarify.  

I give Tom Fazio full credit for the exceptionally good course that World Woods Pine Barrens turned out to be.  100%

I only brought up Strantz because I know how important it is for the actual groundwork to be done by someone who is artistically driven, and I had forgotten that Strantz worked for Fazio.  For Fazio to recognize Strantz's talents and hire him says a lot.

I also liked the look that Tom Fazio gave to his bunkers at Pine Hill, although I wasn't as impressed with the overall design there.  As I mentioned earlier, I've played 8 of his courses and hope to play Victoria National this in September.  I certainly agree with you that there are better and worse architects out there, but I wish that I saw much more of WWPB from him than a lot of much blander stuff that seems to have come from his drawing boards in the past decade.

I've heard good stuff about VN, and Sand Ridge, as well, so hopefully he will return to something quite a bit edgier.

Now, if he'd only keep his hands off classic work.  His comments about the Golden Age tell me that his heart simply isn't in it.

[TEPaul]

Is there a sameness to Stonewall and Pacific Dunes? Is there a sameness to Kapalua, Talking Stick and Easthampton? Is there a sameness to Pinehurst #2 and Gulph Mills? How about Cypress and Augusta National? How about Shinnecock and Indian Creek?

Fazio doesn't really get that bad a rap--most on here know he's the most famous, the most high production architect in the world. How can a million fans be all wrong? You said you get it that he's doing something in Philly! How about Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Georgia etc, etc.

True Quotation;

"I'm not a restorer, I'm a creator."
Tom Fazio

[aclayman]

How many "other" factors, figure into the equation that the finished product does not reflect? I'll bet they are considerable.

Lets start where no one ever goes; Money- Does an archie get a set fee for a design or is it usually comensurate with either direct input and/or the size of the checkbook doing the hiring? In other words will the course design reflect the fee?  Next...

[ed_getka]

I find Fazio courses visually appealing (he definitely has aesthetics mastered), but then when I play them I come away feeling underwhelmed. It makes me think of average private courses that look nice & are superbly maintained but don't required the golfer to think his way around. Sort of like the beer ad, except this is Looks great, less filling. Last year I played the Preserve in Carmel Valley. The setting is spectacular. Rolling hills, wetlands, through a valley surrounded by coastal mountains. The course is a visual feast that I could enjoy just walking without hitting a shot due to the scenery. Playing the course is a different story. Half the holes are just flat out boring. 4 or 5 have greens that you can't see the surface of no matter where you hit your tee shot. However there are a few excellent holes, although I'm not sure of the hole #'s because some holes just don't stick in my memory after 2 rounds there. #7 is a short downhill par 4 that requires a surgeons touch with a wedge. #10 is a par 4 across wetlands to a green I 4-putted and 5-putted in my two rounds without hitting a really bad putt. The green doesn't even look severe, but put your approach in the wrong place and look out. #15 is the best hole there in my opinion. An uphill par 4 that goes pretty straightaway and then hooks around to a green site on the left. The approach shot is a long iron requiring a little draw and the green complex is incorporated nicely into a hillside. A good walk, but not much golf.

[Tim_Weiman]

Walla Walla:

Your question has come up on a couple other threads recently, but I'll repeat what I previously said about criticism of Tom Fazio.

Critics raise three issues:

1) the high cost of many Fazio projects

2) what some call the "dumb blonde" or the emphasis of aethetics over interesting strategy

3) Fazio's work on classic era courses

People on this site tend to believe we should not keep making the game more expensive, they like playing interesting holes, i.e., holes where one must think before playing a shot and they tend to believe that classic era architecture as a whole is superior to modern designs and should just be left alone.

Tom Fazio runs a very successful business and most people I meet greatly enjoy his work, including guests I have out to Sand Ridge, my home club.

Criticism of Fazio tends to come from people who have traveled extensively and studied many classic era courses.  They tend to be people less impressed by the "wow factor" inherent to much of Fazio's work.  Instead, they look for golf holes with features that make shots challenging and yet fun to play.

I would guess Fazio would come in for less criticism if he avoided work on classic era courses.  To people who love classic era architecture, an architect who makes significant changes to a course will be perceived negatively - whether it is Fazio or anyone else.  Fazio takes hits because he has become involved with several high profile courses, e.g., Augusta, Merion and now, Oakmont.

That said, I'm curious.  Why do you think people here rap Fazio?

[Walla]

TE- I didn't say that sameness was a bad thing. Some of my favorite courses have a sameness to them - Yale, Fishers, Piping, NGLA all have a sameness
Long Cove, Harbour Town, TPC, Blackwolf
I could go on
CPC, CD, UM, and Pasatiempo
I guess we just have to like the "sameness"
Tim- I think Fazio gets knocked on this site because he gets a lot of projects we wanted to see other guys gets. I do agree with the Dumb Blonde, I guess I just like an occasional Dumb Blonde. Sometimes they are smarter than you think, once you get to know them.

[Mike_Cirba]

Walla,

Frankly, I have no idea what jobs Fazio is up for against whom at what sites.  I'm fairly certain that not many others on this site know or care about such matters either.

Let's talk about his courses.  That's what you brought up and that's where his work should be measured.

[Walla]

Mike,
Galloway
Black Diamond
Lake Nona
WW Pine Barrens
I haven't seen some of his others that get high marks. I'll put these four up against most all that I'm seeing built today.
I would have rather seen Doak or Dye get the site for Pelican Hill or the Quarry. Why do you think Fazio gets little respect here?

[aclayman]

While never having golfed there, I had heard Black Diamond was a six hole (quarry holes) Gem. The rest is so so

Is that be an unfair charachterization?

[Brian B]

While i agree that most Fazio courses i've played are asthetically pleasing yet lacking in strategy, I would like to bring up a couple of courses that i did find challenging.

Jonathan's Landing - Old Trail is a Fazio course in Jupiter FL. I found it very challenging. A good mix of holes, short medium  and long par 4's. Same for the 3's and 5's. There are no "tricked up" holes that i often see on so many Fazio courses. Everything is pretty much right in front of you.

Another that i recently played and is hosting next years Senior Open is Caves Valley in Maryland. I thought this was a solid course. SOme improvments could be made and i think the club has already made some changes to get ready for the open. But for the most part again a good mix of holes and nothing gimmicky.

I do notice one thing about Fazio designs in general. There always seems to be a hole or two that remind me of another hole from Pine Valley. It seems as if he likes to replicate the 15th and 9th holes in particular. Does anyone else notice this?

[SPDB]

I think that John's Island West has about as much a balance between aesthetics and strategy as one could hope for. With the exception of the 16th and it's gimmicky green, the course really invites you to make some interesting choices, particularly on the homeward nine. The 18th, a stunning Cape hole that has a heroic strategy aspect and mind-boggling beauty.

The other courses I have played:
Galloway
Hartefeld
Hudson
Reynolds Plantation
Forest Creek
White Columns
Champion Hills
Pine Hill
... all have very different characteristics, and this could owe to the fact that they occupy different types of terrain, but for the most part I did not think they evinced a "sameness." I was terribly impressed with Galloway, Hartefeld, Forest Creek and the back nine at Reynolds Plantation. Unimpressed by White Columns and find the routing a little bit strange at Hudson.  

[John_Conley]

Nice that someone is giving props to J.I.W.  Really like that one.  Getting to it is comical - turn at the thrift store and wander past Ron's Island trailer park!!  #18 is the best finishing approach to a clubhouse I've ever seen.

My two cents on the Fazio topic...

I think people love playing modern, high budget, well-maintained courses.  These are the only projects Tom Fazio takes.  Sure, there is a sameness to some of his work when the sites aren't very interesting.  Some of the courses I've played that are real good include Pine Barrens and John's Island.  When the site is unique you get courses like Black Diamond or Victoria.

The 4th and 5th courses at Bonita Bay, Osprey Ridge at Disney, Rolling Oaks, and the new Camp Creek are all excellent places to play in Florida.

Resentment creeps in from many armchair architects because they wish others were as prolific as Fazio, who clearly has led the industry in terms of exposure over the last decade.  The aforementioned Camp Creek came in around $15 to $17 Million!  

It would be nice if Keith Foster, David McLay Kidd, Jim Engh, Jeff Brauer, Tom Doak, and others in that arena received an equal number of shots.  But the reality is that Fazio, Nicklaus, Arthur Hills, Rees Jones, Pete Dye, and similar high-recognition guys have been getting the lion's share of plum jobs.  That doesn't have to make their work any less special.

My analogy is that Tom Fazio is the Donald Ross of today.  Ask an average golfer to name an architect of yore and they probably think of Ross before Flynn, Raynor, or Colt.  Was his work better?  I'd say no, there's just more of it.

[T_MacWood]

I think one of the reason that Fazio does not get the respect that many believe he deserves, is because his proponents are often unable to explain exactly why his courses are compelling and his critics many times do not have that problem -- and that is why they are unimpressed.

As an example this thread I now know many of his courses get 'highmarks' and will stand up to any other modern courses.

Also many are challenging and have a good mix of holes.

The only post that mentions strategy is SPDB who enjoys Johns Island West because of the combination of aesthetics and strategy.

I wonder if the reason you do not here terms like 'interesting' or 'thought provoking' is because Fazio's biggest strength is also his biggest weakness. He is consistently able to produce very striking designs, aesthetically striking designs, many are challenging, others more on the playable side, some exhibilt strategy, others not so strategic, but all are visually appealing.

Unfortunately a great deal of that visual appeal is the result of his ability to artistically manipulate the landscape, there may not be an architect today, or in the history of golf architecture, that has been able to create such a beatiful naturalistic scene -- Fazio's romanticized view of nature. And that beauty many times becomes predicatable and uninteresting. The most interesting courses are those that use nature and co-exist with nature -- and all that nature presents, be it subline, rugged or odd. Nature is unpredictable.

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

The ironic thing about your contention that Tom Fazio is becoming the Donald Ross (based on total volume) of this generation is that I can remember just about eight years ago he went to great pains in interviews to point out that he only accepted a couple of jobs a year (because doing more would negatively affect quality), and also wanted them within reasonable distance of his home in NC.  Quite a switch in direction, and certainly his perogative!  

More important to me is where his courses stand against not only his modern peers, but also against the great courses of the past.  Certainly, his very best work stands among that crowd, or perhaps just a notch below.  I only wonder if the fact that he has built so many pretty, but "vanilla" courses in recent years isn't primarily due to the fact that he has stretched himself pretty thin.  His latest pro bono "restoration" work at classic courses certainly won't alleviate that problem.  

But, I know that he can produce strategic holes.  WWPB has about 10 of them, and as a result, it's a fun golf course as well as being pretty.  On the other hand, Pine Hill has maybe 4 or 5 holes that could really be called "strategic" in any way, and the results are somewhat disappointing.    

[kilfara]

If I were Ran (and thank goodness I'm not, by the way!), I would insist upon a three-month moratorium, during which any post containing the word "Fazio" would automatically be deleted. Seems like the only way to keep passions below the boiling point would be not to talk about him at all.

Seriously, there are several regular posters who could do with taking a break from the topic of Tom Fazio. I don't like much of what he seems to stand for, but it seems like a couple of weeks can't go by without the same Fazio-bashing (well-reasoned bashing, to be sure, but bashing all the same) reappearing in the guise of a different topic. He's done some pretty good stuff, and his reputation isn't all smoke-and-mirrors and "Wow" factor. All the knee-jerk criticism is starting to rub me the wrong way - so much so that my instinct at the moment is to leap to his defense. Not something I think I would normally do!  

So, at the undoubted risk of sounding exceedingly patronizing, can I encourage you (you know who you are) to stop, take a deep breath, and swallow hard before regurgitating the same anti-Fazio rhetoric yet again? That comment doesn't really apply to this thread, but it certainly does elsewhere. Reapproaching him and his body of work (both original and "restoration") with a fresh attitude might do us all wonders. And maybe, just maybe, by tempering the virulence of the anti-Fazio brigade, more potential posters can be lured into the open...I wonder how many people come into this site agreeing with the pro-Fazio majority, then are scared into silence by those who would "educate" the unwashed?

Cheers,
Darren

[SPDB]

John,

I think your comment re: wishing Doak, Hanse, Foster would get some more of the plum assignments doesn't really take into account the experience that Fazio, Nicklaus, et al. have accrued over the years.

Fazio has been in the business a long time, considerably longer than Doak. That he gets plum assignments more often than Doak is not surprising, his catalog of work is considerably larger, and as a result he is much more well known. I suspect that Doak will get more plum jobs going forward. In the same way that demand for Fazio increased following Wild Dunes, I am sure that Doak will be fielding myriad (and lucrative) assignments in the not too distant future in response to the resounding success of Pacific Dunes (and others).

This is not too say that Doak (or Hanse, et al.) will run their business in the same way. But too say that Fazio hasn't earned some entitlement to plum assignments is to diminish his accomplishments, which as almost everyone on this board will concede is significant (whether you like it or not).

[John_Conley]

SPiDerBite:  (what does SPDB stand for?)

True, Nicklaus & Fazio have more years experience - but the names I mention often apprenticed under someone before hanging out their own shingle.  Also, a "signature" designer managing a large team of worker bees has their name on more courses and may or may not have as much time spent in the dirt as others.  Certainly the case with Nicklaus or Palmer, whose names are a brand more than anything.

My analogy that Fazio is like Ross also takes into account that we are in a golden age renewal for course construction.  THIS WILL NOT LAST.  So, while Doak and others may enjoy bigger reputations in the future... there will not be as much work to spread around as there was in the 90s.  THERE WILL NOT.

Which brings up another topic about growing the game and how very little construction is being done at the low end to grow the game and attract new participants.

[SPDB]

John - I like your interpretation, if only it were so. Unfortunately, SPDB = Sean P.D. Berry (my name).

The NYT, a couple of months back did a piece about the glut of newly designed golf courses, and how supply was totally outstripping demand. Moreover, there was a growing backlash by people who believe that there are no new courses being designed with the beginner golfer, or recreational weekend duffer. In essence they were being built out of the market. This, the article contended, was a result of overly difficult design and prohibitively expensive greens fees, usually necessary to cover the cost of constructing the overly difficult golf course in the first place.

The beginning golfer is being totally taken out of the equation on a public level. Admittedly, there are still plenty of muni's where novices can hone their skill, but even these courses are a dying breed, and there is no movement to build low cost, medium quality golf courses, even though a market for them probably exists.

A good metric to check out would be the ratio of high-end, so called "daily-fee" courses, to muni's, or low/mid-end courses, constructed from 1995-2001.

[John_Conley]

Spiderbite:

We can study 'til the cows come home, but it really isn't necessary since you and I can see the problem.  In MOST of the country (I would never say this applies to all, because there are certainly exceptions - I just got back from Destin, FL, an area that will see more development for a while) there are new courses chasing the same customer the last new course chased.  At some point everyone loses.

For most people the game is too expensive, too difficult, and takes too long.  Is another triple-digit green fee on a CCFAD with a (hopefully) 4 1/2 hour round going to get my friends to take up the game or play more often?  No.

You can't get me to play more than I do, about 75-90 rounds per year - at least until Jack is born in January!  You could get my best friend, who toyed around with the game a bit when we were too young to drive, to play 15-20 times per year (vs. 2 or 3) if it were $25-30, took 3 to 3 1/2 hours, and weren't an exercise in frustration.

Sounds like a call for a 5000 yard, par 67 where you can carry your bag!  Funny, Winter Pines G.C. near my house is the busiest course in our area, and rumored to be the busiest in the nation.  Casselberry is about the same.

I understand you cannot build courses like this in downtown areas.  It just seems that some could be built somewhere.

[Mike_Cirba]

At the moment, and ignoring Darren's suggestion that we stop talking about Tom Fazio, this thread has perhaps inadvertedly turned to one of the biggest complaints I've heard voiced about Tom Fazio.  

Frankly, his approach of moving large quantities of dirt and his philosophical disregard for utilizing natural features means that almost all of his projects are BIG $$$$$.  That's certainly his perogative, as well, and during a flush economy his courses certainly reflected that bullish attitude.

However, as you gentlemen are discussing, one has to wonder how long the cash cow can be milked and whether that approach is inevitably the best for the game's growth and future.  

Going back to the Donald Ross comparison for a moment, DR designed quite a number of low-budget municipal and public designs, many of which turned out to be lovely efforts that are still enjoyed today (i.e Mark Twain GC).  In fact, such courses spurred a lot of growth in the game over the years.  

How many similar courses has Tom Fazio built?  

[Tim_Weiman]

Darren:

Folks like Tommy N can tell you that I have cautioned against "Fazio bashing", but like it or not, Tom Fazio is one of the biggest names in the business and people will go on discussing his work.  Fazio's involvement with high profile classic courses such as Augusta, Merion and now Oakmont guarantees the discussion will go on.

As for your concern about encouraging more potential posters, I share your concern.  I'd like to see many more people post, including people who are "pro-Fazio".

For the benefit of those who might be "scared into silience", I will point out that a while back I did a couple posts about Sand Ridge, a Fazio design near Cleveland where I am a member.

Though my review of Sand Ridge was very positive, not a single person gave me a hard time, including people on this site often associated with "Fazio bashing".

Moreover, if memory serves me, not long ago a very positive review of Galloway National was posted (Mark Fine???) and again, there was no strong or negative feedback towards the author.

Bottom line: I see no reason for people to be "scared into silence".  People in the golf business may chose for understandable reasons to refrain from posting, but for all others, what's the big deal?

If someone likes work done by Fazio or Nicklaus or Rees Jones, fine!  Just tell me why.  Just tell me why it is worth going out of my way to see.  If it is worth it, I WANT to jump on a plane!

[SPDB]

Mike -
I don't think it is fair to say that DR was a humanitarian, and Fazio, a heartless capitalist. I am certain that for the munis he designed, DR was probably paid comparably to what he was paid to design Wannamoisett, or another course. The construction requirement differences between muni's and private courses in DRs era was not as wide as they would be today.

[Mike_Cirba]

SPBD,

Nope, not what I'm arguing at all.  They were/are both thrifty capitalists, certainly. No shame in that.

However, I'd simply let Donald Ross speak for himself, and I think you'll see where the differences lie.

"There is no good reason why the label "a rich man's game" should be hung on golf.  The game had its origin with the shepherd, who used his crook and a ball to while away the time while the sheep grazed.  In my own native country ....their total expenditures annually are not more than $5.  On account of climactic conditions and greater initial expense, it could hardly be expected that the average cost would be quite so small in this country, but it need not be made greater than the purse of any man could afford.

THe development of municipal golf courses is the outstanding feature of the game in America today.  It is the greatest step ever taken to make it the game of the people, as it should be.  The municipal courses are all moneymakers, and big moneymakers.  I am naturally conservative, yet I am certain that in a few years we will see golf played much more generally than it is now.  

I also see a brilliant future for the pay-as-you-enter golf courses of America, a tremendously big new industry.  It's something between a municipal and a country club golf course.  We pick out the land.  We let the loal men interested in the idea of golf for the people buy a certain percentage of the stock.  They eventually may take it over.  We are talking about nine hole courses which would cost $50 or $65K with a clubhouse included, a good nine hole course too!  And we are talking about eighteen hole courses on the same scale, where good, sporty, attractive, layouts may be developed."

[T_MacWood]

Sean
I didn't get the impression Mike was calling Ross a humanitarian and Fazio a heartless capitalist. As far being a successful capitalist Ross is second to none and Fazio is well known for his humanitarian work.

Just as today, in Ross's day there were huge budget projects like Banff, Yale, Lido and Timber Point. But Ross tended to design in a way that utilized what mother nature had given him. Fazio on the other hand builds with a heavy hand and has been associated with many extremely expensive projects - and very few, if any, low budget courses.

Ross provided a great numbers of relativeley inexpensive courses for the masses, which kept the cost for golf relatively low, and Fazio has concentrated on extremely high end projects which tends increase the cost for golf across the board.

There is an interesting chapter in Fazio's book where analyzes the older courses, and concludes they were flawed because of the inability (more likely hesitation) to move dirt and that there were 3 or 4 holes on these courses that were either quirky or unorthodox, and that we need not be stuck with them today. That mentality leads to more expensive golf courses and those 3 or 4 holes are the reason many of those older courses are interesting.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()