[Paul Richards]

With all of the 'blasting' that Golf Digest has taken over their latest rankings on this website, (even from 'yours truly',   ), I do want to commend Ron Whitten on his two very insightful and excellent articles in the Top 100, May issue.

The first was:
>Can you buy your way onto our list?

>No, our rankings are not for sale. But money does matter
when it comes to creating today's super courses.

>By Ron Whitten


My comment on this article is that the proliferation of these 'overspend-the-unlimited-budget' type courses on this latest list is a bad trend for the golf industry.  



Mr. Whitten then goes on to his other very excellent piece:

>Is Tom Fazio good for the game?

>Golf's leading designer is beloved by many, yet his courses have lifted expectations—and costs—to troubling levels.

>By Ron Whitten


This details a problem with Tom Fazio's courses, which, lately, have all seemed to follow this 'overspend-the-unlimited-budget' path as the norm, rather than the exception.


So thank you, Ron Whitten, for presenting these 'fair-and-balanced' articles as an adjunct to the Top 100 lists.



 

[PThomas]

ditto, Paul....I thought the same when I read those items

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I think we can infer that RW is disturbed by this trend in the new ratings. I always thought that my daughter was the only one who could exceed an unlimited budget.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Richards,

If Tom Doak is successful in designing a world class golf course at Sebonack, should his efforts be minimized or dismissed because of the substantial budget necessary to acquire the land and build the golf course and clubhouse ?

[Paul Richards]

Pat

Doak and Nicklaus are collaborating on this one.

To answer your question, Sebonac sits on a very expensive piece of real estate.  My hunch is that the parcels of land where Flint Hills and Dallas National and Victoria National were built by Fazio were purchased for much lower prices.

So it's not necessarily the cost of the land, but the cost of what is done to the land.  

How does that sound?

[Paul Richards]

Pat

You can check on this, but I don't believe the reason that Shadow Creek was so expensive was because of the land acquisition.

 

[Mark Brown]

Fazio is not the problem. It's the egotistical owners that hire him and want a monument to themselves. Fazio just delivers what they want.

It would be nice if some these billionaires (Trump $2.6 billion net worth) would donate some money to build affordable golf in areas that would never get it any other way. It's still the me genteration.

I salute Pete Dye who has designed a number of course at colleges and small towns for a fee of $1. I better stop because I could go on for days on this subject.

[Gib_Papazian]

Is there a link to the article?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Here's the link to "Is Tom Fazio good for the game?"

http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/americasgreatest/index.ssf?/courses/americasgreatest/gd200505100greatfazio.html

[Scott_Burroughs]

Gib,

Here's a direct link to the article, and yes, you are quoted in it (I saw it yesterday at the supermarket).  

[Paul Richards]

Mark

>Fazio is not the problem. It's the egotistical owners that hire him and want a monument to themselves. Fazio just delivers what they want.


You're right.


Mr. Fazio is not afraid to tell you that he charges a lot of money, pays his people a lot of money, and donates a lot to charity.


Oh, and by the way, he doesn't know anything or even want to know anything about classical architecture and classical architects.



 

[Gib_Papazian]

Scott,

Did not know that. Ron asked me to write some stuff, but I had no idea what he did with it.

-G

[Paul Richards]

Mark said:

>Fazio is not the problem. It's the egotistical owners that hire him and want a monument to themselves. Fazio just delivers what they want.


To hijack a great quote from another thread, David Moriarty said:

>As I assume Paul was, I was being critical of Fazio's and/or the media's focus on what is surely eye popping eye candy, as opposed to focusing on the course itself.  ONE NEED NOT BE A FAZIO BASHER TO LAMENT THE FOCUS ON THE SUPERFICIALITY OVER SUBSTANCE.


 

[Kelly Blake Moran]

"Fazio just delivers what they want."  

That statement is constantly given without any thought or analysis.  I just don't believe it.  you attain his level of success and have 14 courses in the top 100, you have to believe in what you are doing, you have to be totally committed to your design philosophy and believe in it as being the very best approach for you to continue at that high level of design and at that pace.  It is amazing that so many on here decry his designs then absolve him of what he has done and blame it on the rich owner.  He is not a puppet to the owners.  Any great artist has a vision and once they find the patrons they exploit those opportunitites to show the world their vision.  If he wanted to stop today and just do classic restoration or more ground level economy course he could do it if he truly believed in it.  And stop justifying him about his charity.  Everyone here in some way big and small is charitable, and most you don't hear about because they believe in the maxim "don't let the left hand know what the right hand is doing", others choose to publicize their charitable works as a part of marketing their image.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Mark Brown and Paul Richards may have some inside knowledge on how Fazio operates, but it might be instructive to hear how a big time architect interacts with his clients, which I would expect Fazio to do as well.

Quoted from an article:

"the Dutch architect, Rem Koolhaas likes to say he must first seduce his client with his vision-a process that he describes as foreplay."

That to me is how an architect interacts with a client, not the other way around.  If this process is followed properly then ultimately it is the architect who is responsible for what gets built, not some egotistical owner telling the architect what to do.

If after this foreplay the owner and architect do not share the vision then I would expect each would be professional enough to recognize that and separate and not consumate the deal.

[BCrosby]

I worry sometimes that we are just a bunch of wingnuts howling at the moon. (Is that a mixed metaphor?)  

So it was nice to hear Whitten saying things about Fazio that have been voiced here on GCA for several years. Maybe we aren't as wingnutty as I fear.

A very good piece. Bravo Ron.

Bob

P.S. Who was that "Gib" guy he quotes?

[RJ_Daley]

Thank you Ron,

I think your comments are right on the mark.  Your article has given me the temerity to take Tom Doak to task on some of his comments on the Wynn thread.  While I don't think all of your observations about Fazio and the evolution and result of his brand name process applies, I do perceive some of that same process and thinking in TD's comments.

It seems a vicious cycle.  Early success of inovative design merit breeds demand for the new hot designers by more mega-developers with greater expectations for the star designer to exceed even their high expectations.  The emphasis to incorporate the wow factor, eye candy, as obligatory brand markings of the designer, only brings about lesser developers over expectations from their chosen designers.  All of it piles up to higher costs to construct, superfluous features, that only leads to a smaller, elite customer base.  This does not bode well for a growth oriented future for golf when these expectations keep rising.

[Lou_Duran]

Dick,

When I was very young, the few places we could find to play baseball had numerous problems.  I remember that we once built a crude diamond on an industrial site with a waste trench crossing right behind the infield.  At another, the left field fence was a mere 225', so anything that went over left of center was ruled an automatic out.

Certainly, it would not be appropriate to compare these rudimentary fields to the great parks of today.  But to make such an exercise feasible for golf, would you recommend penalizing high budget courses to make the lists "fairer"?Doesn''t the GD list of "affordable" courses suffice?

It seems to me that the trend of building ultra-expensive golf courses helps to move the quality of architecture and maintenance forward.  It also creates an umbrella where competition at lower levels can thrive (as when a well known brand, say Frito-Lay, prices aggressively and opens up more room below it for the competition).   Who knows, the consumer may quickly decide that the quality differences do not justify the added expense, and vote with their feet.  And why should you and I care if they build $30MM courses that we will never join and seldom play?

I would be curious to know how residents and visitors to Nebraska feel about Wild Horse and Sand Hills.  Clearly, they are both excellent courses, yet one is highly affordable and accessible, while the other is not.  I know that Sand Hills didn't cost all that much to build, but isn't the effect of pricing and access the same?

[RJ_Daley]

Lou, I'd rather not go to the Sand Hills-Wild Horse thing as I'm getting tired of being a homer about thoughts on WH, so to speak.

It seems to me that the trend of building ultra-expensive golf courses helps to move the quality of architecture and maintenance forward.  It also creates an umbrella where competition at lower levels can thrive...

I can't agree with that at all, nor to I think Whitten sees it that way in his article.  The lower level and the customers see the extravagant designs and features and somehow think it is the way courses should be, or try to imitate.  They get caught up in the envy or mentality that what is presented is the way golf must strive to be, not what roots it really came from.  Whitten's article seems to me to be about expectations.  Unrealistic expectations are brought on by brand name marketting of high end designers, and the making of their reputations for the extravagant and perfect.  That isn't golf to me.  I appreciate great shaping art in the manufactured course, and I appreciate utilizing to the fullest mother natures gifts when they are present in the most minimimal.  I don't like pounding over mother nature, even if the gifts are not obvious and are infact subtle, and when a golf architect can use the subtlety to give you an interesting course to play (maybe not full of wow eye candy-but interesting) then that archie succeeds to a far greater extent than one that pounds the crap out of what was there subtly to present something extravagant and perfect looking.  And, to me the archie that did it minimally and cost effectively is the one who raises the bar through creativity and offering a future for the game for more than just the elite.

I don't care about the lists, so your question about penalizing high end courses because they do what they do isn't up my alley too much.

"Our people want to play more, not pay more.' (Tim Weiman)

[Mike_Cirba]

Early success of innovative design merit breeds demand for the new hot designers by more mega-developers with greater expectations for the star designer to exceed even their high expectations.  The emphasis to incorporate the wow factor, eye candy, as obligatory brand markings of the designer, only brings about lesser developers over expectations from their chosen designers.  All of it piles up to higher costs to construct, superfluous features, that only leads to a smaller, elite customer base.  This does not bode well for a growth oriented future for golf when these expectations keep rising.

Phew...that was good, Dick.  

[Lou_Duran]

Dick,

There are courses for all horses.  The "Augusta Effect" is highly overrated in my opinion  Those who want only the best are much less numerous than they are wealthy.

In fact, I think that there are studies in social psychology that show a tendency of people to like what they are used to and can afford, often overenphasizing their qualities while dissing those of superior products.  You know, e.g. my convertible LeBaron is more fun than the SL500, and besides, it has a superior backseat and it is paid for.

I don't think that golf is that much different.  Even the famous "Goat Hills" in Fort Worth, actually named Z-Boaz, has a core of players who could care less that Dallas National is a mere 25-30 miles down the interestate.  After all, they both have 18 holes and grass, don't they.

This site is a very small pond.  Most folks barely know that Fazio is a golf architect.  Hell, a good many have not even given any thought to how the golf course got there, only that it is, and that it has grass and cold beer for themselves and their buds.

And if the second and third tier architects can incorporate some of the extra things you noted cheaply and stay in budget, we all benefit from it.  BTW, what is wrong again with eye candy and the WOW factor?  Maybe it can be done economically so that while we may not all get the same quality of cloth, at least the tailoring is very nice.  You know, us poor folk also enjoy some aesthetics.    

[Tom_Doak]

In general I would have to agree with Mr. Daley.  Now that I'm semi-famous, most of our newer clients have higher expectations and downright INSIST on building things in more expensive ways -- more irrigation, more expensive greens construction, etc., etc. -- even though we try to talk them out of it.

However I am not convinced that this really has anything to do with the quality of the finished architecture, pro or con.  And I am certainly unconvinced that it will make me unable to build less expensive courses when I have clients who would prefer that approach ... Barnbougle and St. Andrews Beach are two of the least expensive good courses that have been built in this century.

[hlavender]

I sent the following to the editor of golf digest this evening:

Mr. Tarde, Mr. Whitten:

My first reaction to your decision to remove tradition as one of the rating elements in your course lists was incredulity.  As you do not separate your ratings into modern and classic lists (as does the other publication that matters), imho the element of tradition was the only thing that gave your ranking credibility.  Having now had some time to ponder your decision, my reaction is that you have done those of us who care about these things a great service.  In fact, I would like to suggest that you use tradition as a big negative, which would result in most if not all of the classic courses being removed from your list entirely.  This would allow these great and storied courses to return to quiet anonymity, to be enjoyed by those who appreciate their tradition, their history, their beauty, and in many cases their quaintness.  When, ultimately, you name the 8000 yard Gltizy Springs Gamblers Casino Spa Golf and Racquet Club, completed just yesterday, as your number one course we’ll know that what appears to be your goal has been achieved.

H Lavender
Chicago  

[Mike Hendren]

Oh, and by the way, he doesn't know anything or even want to know anything about classical architecture and classical architects.
 

Paul,

In my opinion, Fazio's seamless redesign of the Colt & Allison nine and Joe Lee nine into the Seaside Course at Sea Island reflects sensitivity to the genius of Colt & Allison and classic architectural elements.  

I encourage you to visit if you've not done so.  

Mike

[T_MacWood]

"In my opinion, Fazio's seamless redesign of the Colt & Allison nine and Joe Lee nine into the Seaside Course at Sea Island reflects sensitivity to the genius of Colt & Allison and classic architectural elements."  

Mike
In what way does Fazio's redesign reflect sensitivity to Alison....to 'classic architectural elements'?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()