Merion's done. Next up ...

[Tom_Doak]

Received word yesterday that Mr. Fazio is now being hired as a consultant to Oakmont CC.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Is there a connection between Fazio's hiring and the likelihood the club will be announced as the venue for the 08 Open?

[Daniel_Wexler]

"Hired" or "engaged?"

My dictionary describes hired as "to employ for pay" and, well, you know.....

[ForkaB]

Hmmmmmmm......

.....wonder how long it will be before he works his way down the list to Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes..........?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Mr. Fazio must now be considered the BEST "PR man" in the business of golf course design, ever. Period.

I mean, after Inverness and Oak Hill, it's amazing that clubs like Oakmont, Merion and Riviera would even consider him to work on their historic layouts. Absolutely amazing.

I honestly had hopes Renaissance would land the Oakmont job, Tom. I was anxious to see what you would have done with their course... drawing inspiration from the Fownes', of course.  

[C. Rokke]

Fazio reminds me of the world's greatest salesman depicted on my Larsen coffee mug:
The guy's pulling away from the polar icecap in a small boat, waiving goodbye to his new eskimo friends on shore, who are all proudly standing next to the brand new refrigerators they've just purchased from him.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I'm going to find a very tall cliff.

[Seen the Light Cirba]

Aren't those Oakmont greens a little much already?  How in gawd's name can anyone think they are fair for the modern game?

I understand that Rees Jones was able to flatten the greens at Atlanta Athletic Club, along with putting bunkers in to guard the water hazard on the 8th fairway.  

Along with the ridiculous greens, how can a great course like Oakmont exist without a single water hazard?  I mean, what kind of framing is that??!!  Just imagine nice water features setting off the beauty of the downhill 1st and 10th greens, and we could use the irrigation water to soften those rock hard greens.  

And those bunkers...So many of them, yet way too many of them in play.  They would be better served merely as aiming points, well out of play, but beautiful nonetheless.

Actually, I'm hoping that Fazio is instructed to restore the course to the original 1910 Fownes design, with a simple, few, minor modern touches added to bring the course into the new millenium.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Tom,
I sense from your post that you actually thought you had a chance at this job. It's clear why you failed. First, I would assume you asked for too much compensation, that would be anything over $1. Second, and most importantly, you must be willing to act on input from those wannabe architects, Mssrs. Moraghan and Meeks (I know Mr. David Fay, your staff never gives recommendations on architects or course changes...). As part of point 3 Tom, the wonderful input from the Far Hills staff entails making shallow changes to classic designs, along with an injection of the standard "lets push it to the edge and make sure we protect par" mindset. You are not qualified for this work, I'm sorry. You would do what is best for the architecture. Who would want that!?

Geoff

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

I'm not so sure that Tom Meeks and David Fay, et. al., take such an active role in architectual decisions at Oakmont or at any other club.

What do you base your statements on ?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Pat,

Read my post, I did not say Fay takes an active role. Quite the opposite, he defends his staff ignorance. Says they don't make suggestions nor does he (very shrewd when you have yearly disasters related to course setup).  

For places like Bethpage, your hero Rees probably wouldn't be too happy to know how much credit everyone involved takes for his work. Why, I don't know. Some of the Black Course bunkers are really awful looking.  
Geoff

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

FYI

Check my thread on Bethpage and you will find a move by the USGA to make strategic changes to the Black. Others are planned.

All for the purposes in protecting "par."

[Willie_Dow]

Come on guys, we are fadeing away somewhat carelessly.  Oakmont is another "Fazio Design" concept.  Let's help out here!

[Gary Sherman]

Some comforting quotes for the members of Oakmont from the "Faz" from this weeks Golfweek article on Augusta changes.
"I'm tired of people saying, 'Doesn't this play into Tiger Wood's hands, because you made it longer?'  Augusta National deals in the present and the future, not in the past."
Better yet...
"It's hard to use the word original at Augusta National.  It's a misnomer in the sense that the golf club has been evolving over so much time"

That noise roaring down Interstate 76 is the sound of Faz's heavy calvary coming to Oakmont's rescue.

[Mike_Cirba]

Willie,

Please take note of my cynical sarcasm and satire.

If the head of these clubs invite Tom Fazio and crew in, I'm truly not certain how to proceed anymore.

Some months ago, there was a thread here about whether or not an "Augusta Syndrome" existed.  I think what we are seeing here is a syndrome that is fed by the USGA & PGA, which suggests that courses seeking another major championship need revision work by either Tom Fazio or Rees Jones.  

How does one fight that?  The monies involved are tremendous, and the odds are stacked against us.

[Duke Maas]

Who is Fazio kidding?  Augusta is all about the past - the old guys teeing off in the morning, the champion's dinner, Doug Ford and his WDs, who hit what shot from where, all of the traditions.  Thats one of the main reasons that everybody loves it.  If not for the past what do you have but a small field going at it on a tricked up, idiosyncratic golf course.

[Mike_Cirba]

By the way..

I should add to my thoughts that at least Rees Jones has shown himself very capable of doing a sensitive restoration when called upon by a club to do work prior to a "Major". (i.e. Brookline)

The other fellow I mentioned seems to be all about change, as evidenced by his comments concerning ANGC.  

[Pulliamjs]

Why is Fazio so reviled?

What is it, specifically, about his product that so offends?

Or is it simply that he takes on so many projects that he must utilize his staff for the work?  Or is it that he knows how to market his firm?  If so, why doesn't Donald Ross get the same treatment on this board?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Pulliam,

It's pretty simple why he's "reviled" (I think it's more dismay than something that strong). Fazio is a popular builder of courses that people like and is very successful. Fine. But apparently that is not enough. He is offering his staff to the great classic DESIGNS we have with the obvious hope of getting his name further enhanced. Fazio puts down the old architects in his book, says they are overrated. Even acknowledges in the book that what he's dong at Augusta is not what Jones and MacKenzie would like. Yet he feels a need "to help" these old courses. A lot of the clubs he is working for call his work sensitive or pure restoration or taking the course back to a certain year or doing what the old architect would have done if he were here today, etc... The point is, there is a lack of integrity to his work and his motives are suspect. He is manipulating his name with committee types and USGA folks who don't know better and who are suckers for free services that he offers, versus architects who would charge and presumably actually make an appearance on site. He is doing this to further enhance his ability to charge exhorbant design fees and be known as a master architect whose services are wanted by courses both old and new. Donald Ross never did anything quite like this, which might be why no one here has made that connection.

Some people, particularly the USGA staff, have no trouble with compromising these old courses because profit is the primary objective and nothing can get in the way sadly. But it is bothersome to many of us not because Fazio is successful, but because he's willing to set aside principle, honesty and the good of golf to simply be able to charge more and have his name mentioned alongside people who genuninely designed for the love of the game and with an eye for true art in golf architecture.  

Oh, and most of all, Fazio and his firm are really bad when it comes to doing work on classic designs. They don't understand their strategy or what makes them beautiful to look at, so his work sticks out.

The question that continues to remain a mystery: why isn't his success as a designer of new courses enough? Why not leave the "restoration" work to people who do it with good intentions, and better, who do it well?

[Mike Touscany]

As mentioned in previous analogies, having Fazio "restore" Oakmont is like having Leroy Neiman painting a pair of "big hooters" on the Mona Lisa.

This of course would be done because if the original artist were alive today, he would know about silicone implants.

[RJ_Daley]

Geoff, your last post seems to really zero in on the process of selection and motivation behind the relationship between Fazio and the club committeemen and decison makers in the golf organizations.  

Could it then be that despite the generally wealthy status and financial health of the storied old clubs, and the profile of where on the socio-economic ladder most of the officials of the governing bodies come from, that the old retired CEO coggers and well placed officials just can't pass up the free stuff?

I really don't know for sure, cause I haven't - nor will I ever run in that herd. But, it fits in nicely with the other thread that speaks of some fellow ready to dump 100+ million on 350acres next to National to have JN build his environmentally (?) friendly, dream golf course.  I makes me wonder how did folk like that not get separated from their $$$$ long ago...  

I think that if guys like Doak, Forse, Hanse, Silva, Bunkerhill, DeVRies, et. al., want to get some of this high profile restore-remodeling work, they will have to invest in one of those dark blue, sporty double breasted yachting blazers, with a knatty captain Stuebing hat, and start attending all the right cocktail parties and donate their services.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Pulliamjs:

Tom Fazio is usually criticized for three things:

a) the costs associated with his projects

b) the emphasis on visual appeal over interesting strategy/shotmaking

c) his association with disturbing classic era courses

Passionate lovers of golf architecture find "c" the most troubling.

Tom Fazio has been very successful building new courses and has made many clients happy. But, his involvement with "restoration" projects undermines his professional reputation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff, Tim, et.al.,

I blame the clubs more than I do the architect they hire.

Long after the architect has left the grounds, the members are left with an altered  golf course that is unlikely to be changed again, within the next twenty years.

They have the ulitimate responsibility to protect and preserve the design integrity of the golf course.

Irrespective of the choice of Doak, Forse, Hanse, Pritchard, or Fazio, Nicklaus and Palmer, the course will be CHANGED, and it is up to the membership to make sure that the architect of choice will remain true to the design principles of the original architect.

It is up to the membership to scrutinize and question every facet of every change to a Merion, Oakmont, etc.,etc..

I favor knowledgeable leadership at the club as being the single most important factor in insuring the successful completion
of any project on a club's golf course, and especially a project where there may be changes proposed for the design features of the course.

Would I select architects who agree philosophically with making changes in harmony with the original design principles, absolutely, but unfortunately not all clubs make that choice.

[Tim_Weiman]

Patrick:

I share your view that golf architects must get approval from the club before proceeding with any changes.

However, if things turn out badly, surely the architect must shoulder a good portion of the blame.

Or do you think otherwise?  Where is the line drawn?  What would you hold the architect, rather than the club, accountable for?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

You can't blame an architect if the club gave him specific marching orders and he successfully completed the project as the members/club directed.

That's just not his fault, it's the club's.