[ian]

I'll disagree with many here. Whether I like, or do not like what Fazio does, the article stuck me as malicious.

Golf Digest needs multiple golf architecture writers to have a more balanced opinion (and to bring in some fresh ideas). If Ron likes or dislikes an architect, he retains too much power to influence opinion. Remember Ron built up Fazio with the famous king of architects article, and that helped make Tom's career jump. Now he seems intent to knock him down a peg. It is the inconsistancy of an opinion that I struggle with most.

I agree with many things written about cost, but going after Fazio in particlular came accross as malicious.

[RJ_Daley]

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.

After all, they both have 18 holes and grass, don't they.

Lou, I get the rationalization mechanism you are speaking of above.  I think it is very true of most people to do so.

Yet, the countervailing or coincidental human nature thing is the "expectations game", where I do think that the Augusta Syndrome is strongly in the mix of people's willingness and desire to purchase something extravagant that they think is of value, because they have had it pounded into their head with the background music of the Augusta telecast always ringing in their ear and the aura of perfection.  It is the same now with water features.  When the rare occasion arises that a fellow that habitually plays your "goat hills"  can spend that extra big buck for a once a year treat of what has been marketted to him as "the best", he is looking for the waterfall before he gets his golf bag on the cart.   Then he doesn't say, "they both have grass and 18 holes, don't they", he is looking for the Augusta Syndrome and now the Trump waterfall with the spritzer walk under the water fall.  He 'expects' it for the money.  The least he is thinking about is a fine test of golf.  God forbid he then goes back to goat hills and says, "why don't we have a waterfall?"  

[RJ_Daley]

Ian, I didn't get the feeling that malicious intent was there.  But, I do agree that it would be nice to have more than one golf course architecture critic on staff for balance.  Yet, all the writers I know, some of whom respond here on GCA.com, seem to share the underlying point that RW has made on this waterfeature-expectations-cost question, it seems to me.  

So, who do you suggest to balance RWs point of view out, Geoff Shackelford?

[Matt_Ward]

Ian:

With all due respect -- the issue is not Ron Whitten's credibility -- he has earned the right to temper his views through the course of time.

The greater issue -- is the manner by which Digest determines the best courses in the USA -- nationally and at the state level through its expanded panel.

What I read from Ron's remarks was a very concise and detailed accounting of what he sees as being in the wrong direction. Thank heavens -- someone is saying something of substance. Unfortunately, Digest sees expansion of its panel as a positive thing -- well -- I've reviewed their findings and they are seriously lacking. Ron's comments -- while not speaking to that issue directly -- indicated his own concerns and I'm glad the magazine provided him the opportunity to do so.

P.S. I have no issue with the magazine or any magazine / publication having a lead architectural critic -- it would be nice if they could have another viewpoint from time to time but that is clearly their prerogative.

[Mike Hendren]

Tom,

Fazio's bunkering throughout the Seaside course is consistent with the splashed up artificial dunes that are a hallmark of the golf course - finished at the fairway grade entry points and more rugged on the far sides.  My sense is that the original nine there was more polished than much of Colt and Allison's previous work, with which I admittedly have limited knowledge, and that the fairway contouring was relatively subtle as opposed the more broken ground upon which much of their work rests.  I believe Fazio's work reflects that subtlety, without resorting to the framing and containment styles for which he is noted and criticized.  

Similarly, the new greens are slightly pushed up in places with subtle surrounds that offer plentiful short game options, thought the chipping areas are a bit overdone in places.  The internal contours are gently sloping, devoid of the ridges he often employes to segment the greens.  

The fairway bunkering is strategic in the sense that there is generally a reward for challenging it, with the resulting penalty not insignificant when staring up at the high bunker faces.  

Not many have had the opportunity to blend a C&A nine and Joe Lee nine into a single eighteen.  I believe he did so without leaving his "stamp" all over the place.  

Mike  

[T_MacWood]

"...the splashed up artificial dunes that are a hallmark of the golf course - finished at the fairway grade entry points and more rugged on the far sides."  

What do you mean by hallmark of the golf course? The hallmark of the course today or yesterday?

Sea Island was designed by CH Alison. I assume the broken ground golf courses you are referring to are those in Britain...those are Colt's. In my opinion the style of the original Sea Islandcourse was typical of Alison's other American work...courses like Timber Point, Milwaukee, Kirtland, North Shore and CC of Detroit. When Sea Island opened it was considered one of the best courses in world (that course consisted of the Alison and Travis nines--Rees remodeled the Travis nine)....its too bad the current owners could not grasp what they had.

There aren't too many architects--living or dead--who are/were more polished than Alison or Colt. In what way was Sea Island more polished than Alison's other work?

Alison's greens are typically pushed up....did Fazio redesign Alison's greens? His fairway contours?

You don't think the artificial dunes and stylized bunkers Fazio added throughout the course is leaving a stamp? Seemless redesign? Classic architectural elements?

[Mike Hendren]

Tom,

I'm glad we agree the work was polished.  

I don't have the benefit of having played the course pre-Fazio.  Perhaps I'm over-relying on years of admiring advertisements in Southern Living highlighted the large scale splash-faced bunkering.  

I'm no Fazio apologist and hardly qualified to opine as to whether he was the right man for the job, but yes, I consider the blending of the nines seamless, and I think the resulting look and strategy is a departure from his other work I've seen.  

I appreciate your comments and welcome more.  As I've often said, I'm here to understand - not to be understood.  
Specifically, what are your criticisms of the course as it exists today?  Did you find it "playable" as much of Fazio's work is characterized?

Mike

[T_MacWood]

I have no opinion of the playing merits of Fazio's redesigned golf course...if you love his version, more power to you.

My problem is with your comment: "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."  It doesn't reflect sensativity the genius of Alison, it reflects the stylized genius of Tom Fazio.

I'm disapointed the resort did not do more to protect and preserve what was a historic design.

[Paul Richards]

Ian:


>I'll disagree with many here. Whether I like, or do not like what Fazio does, the article stuck me as malicious.


I don't agree that what Ron wrote was 'malicious' in any intent.  As you know, as architectural editor, Ron's job also is to be a 'critic' and, in this vein, is merely pointing out that the direction Mr. Fazio has taken in many of his latest designs.


 



Personally, I am glad that someone beyond this website is calling attention to the (mis)direction where golf architecture is headed.  Ron did a fine job here in this regards.


 

[Robert Thompson]

Gentlemen: Isn't there something called conflict of interest when an architecture critic works as a consultant with another firm (Hurdzan/Fry) and then offers a stinging rebuke of a competitor?
Interesting that some can sit in judgement as "architecture critics," while also working part-time as an architect (re: Erin Hills).
I think the Fazio article is quite interesting when taken within that context.

[RJ_Daley]

Robert, that is one very robust blog you have there!  In fact, it has made me wonder something that I'll start a different thread over.

On your point about conflict of interest.  What actually is RWs role at Erin Hills or Architects Club, really.  I don't think (may be wrong) that RW was an actual archie.  I think he was sort of a loosely defined, "consultant".  

No offense, but couldn't the same sort of line of thinking be attributed to yourself, in a slightly different field than architecture, but writing?  Your blog is "going for the green".  Wasn't that John Strawn's title?  I'm not in any manner trying to pick a fight here, and I can see the difference between archie critic and RWs slight role mentioned above.  But, there are all sorts of conflicts, and sometimes in a world in which you are fully engaged in a profession like writing, or designing, etc., aren't the potentials for conflicts to some degree, inevitable?

The same parallel can be drawn to Geoff S., for Rustic Canyon and Prairie Club, yet he has a take about other archies and their works, and his take doesn't suck, so to speak.  I think that is the case here with RW too.  Historically, there have been a number of writers-consultants.  It does turn on the intent of being purposely malicious and trying to undo one's competition, via misinformation or calumny or detraction.  I don't see that in play in the writings of RW, Geoff or you for that matter.

Why should a fellow with the years of experience and passion that these gents obviously have about GCA, disqualify themselves or recuse themselves from GCA or writing about it as a critic, if they have something to contribute in both areas?

[Robert Thompson]

Mr. Daley: I actually had used the name Going for the Green for a golf and business series I did for three years for my newspaper. If I'm guiltly of anything, it is not having the time to dream up another title, not of conflict of interest. In this case, I don't understand the connection between Mr. Whitten/Hurdzan/Fry and my blog. Oh well.
Yes, historically there have been many architects/writers, including our own Mr. Doak. That said, didn't Tom excuse himself from the Golf magazine panel once he started getting regular business?
I actually respect Mr. Whitten's comments, but I'd suggest that Fry and Hurdzan also make very expensive courses where tons of ground is moved. He didn't mention them in his article, now did he? Only Fazio....

[RJ_Daley]

As I have already IMed Robert, I am in error.  Strawn's book was "Driving the Green".  And, the conflict of interest thing regarding a blog is a very far reach in deed, if not unreachable as a concept.

But, I don't see RWs minor role as a design consultant with Hurdzan/Fry as a conflict either.  

Regarding the quantity of dirt moved by Fazio VS Hurdzan/Fry as being the issue also doesn't seem on point from what I interpret RW saying.  Otherwise, RW could just as easily take on Dye and so many others.  I think the issue is the near obligatory grandiose approach adding great cost and little to the game.  The killer mega water feature, the scope and scale of the design ideas with price/cost becoming a very secondary consideration, and not adding all that much to the actual interest or playing quality of the course, seems more the message.

[Tom_Doak]

Interesting footnote:  Dana Fry worked for Tom Fazio for a few years before he went to work with Mike Hurdzan.  His courses could easily be criticized for the same things Ron Whitten takes Fazio to task for ... except Dana's courses aren't all over the GOLF DIGEST list, so it probably didn't occur to him to bash Dana.

I believe that Ron Whitten has taken a very active co-design role with Dana at Erin Hills ... I know he's been there a lot since they broke ground, and he's shared with me some of the things he insisted they do.

Darn near everyone in the golf business has conflicts of interests going on.  Some of them are out in the open, but a lot are not.

[paul cowley]

....personally I don't get this 'conflict of issues, put a persons career in a box', attitude expressed by some .....I would love Tom Fazio, Tom Doak, Tom Weisskof, 'Old Tom' or pick a Tom, to write, critique and/or design on anything relating to the game....a triple decker is fine with me and more power [and respect] to the person who can pull it off .

[T_MacWood]

I don't see a conflict of interest. I thought the article was well ballanced and fair. In fact I'd like to see more thoughful critiques...not only from writer/consultants, but also from architects critiquing one another or from architects defending their work.

I don't believe Brad Klien or Geoff Shackelford's criticisms are in conflict either, even though both dabble in design. Nor do I look at Doak's Confidential guide as a conflict of interest.

There was a day when architects would debate and critique each other, and the game and architecture benefited IMO...the abscense of debate and criticism is unhealthy for an art.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

For the record, I don't see The Confidential Guide as a conflict of interest either.  Everyone knows who I am and what I do, so there's no hidden agenda.

But throwing a hand grenade into a crowded room is not a conflict of interest, either.  

[PThomas]

I think Ron W had some legit points...but  I can also see how some might feel their is a conflict of interest

and even if there isn't one, if there is a perception that one exists, that's just as "bad"

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

You can't be an umpire and baseball player at the same time. Why? It's called a conflict of interest -- either real or perceived. The mere fact one even discloses the issue doesn't absolve one from having one foot planted in each column.

Digest plays a major role becaue of its longevity as a publication and the circulation / prestige it carries. The chief architectural critic IMHO needs to have a clear and separate role away from being an active designer / consultant / call it what you will role. It would be no different than if the chief drama critic at the Times had a serious connection to any play / musical on Broadway.

I don't say that as a negative against Ron Whitten because clearly his voive adds to the discussion as his article in the April issue indicates. But even with disclosure there will be issues in terms of what is written and what is not written in his various columns. There are also the issues of what courses are eventually rated and those that are not. Mr. Thompson's comments from his last thread come to mind with such questions / issues, etc, etc.

Your desire to see architect's critique each other in some form of printed fashion is also not likely to happen. The architects generally follow the same rule as the police with their "blue line." Yes, Tom Doak is an exception and even though in years gone back it did happen it's unlikely you'll see many takers -- although I believe it would be helpful.

[T_MacWood]

You are right you can’t play baseball and umpire at the same time , but this is golf….in golf you are both golfer and umpire.

Golf is much richer because of a number of famous straddlers…one foot planted in each column: AW Tillinghast, Tom Simpson, Max Behr, Alister MacKenzie, Walter Travis, Horace Hutchinson, Guy Campbell, etc. Our understanding of golf architecture would be much poorer if these fellows were ham-strung by modern political correctness and cries of conflict of interest whenever a critical word is raised.

Golf Digest’s longevity and prestige has very little to do with golf architecture. For every excellent architectural article the magazine provides, there are twenty-five fluff pieces. IMO they have wasted Ron Whitten’s talents—they’d rather report on the newest resort course in Myrtle Beach or write another article on how to cure a slice, then allow him to write something interesting. A truly critical look at an architectural topic (like TFazio) is refreshing…and rare. A good one comes along and everyone is up in arms.

Should your background with Ron Whitten and the GD panel, and your employment with a competing magazine prevent you from criticizing him or the magazine?  

Do you find Brad Klein, Tom Doak and Geoff Shackelford in conflict of interest when they are critical?

[RJ_Daley]

Ok, I'll bite on this one...and even try to bring it back to GCA, critique

The architects generally follow the same rule as the police with their "blue line."

As a former cop, and more to the point, a police union representative for many years, I've defended a number of cops; some guilt and some not of various rules and policies violation.  Now, retired and removed to a place of more objectivity, "blue walls of silence, or blue lines" never helped the profession get better, as I see it.  While Serpico was always a hero in my book, I also experienced and practiced the sort of "blue line" mentality on disciplinary matters (however not or never corruption).  MDs practice the same intra-professional professional courtesy to a great extent.  While it is considered "unethical" by the professional bodies to speak critically of others work in the profession (i.e. ASGCA code) it doesn't advance our understanding of what is wrong with that profession, when wrong things occur.

Armchair critics are rarely learned enough to really critique the construction/design process of courses in the same way experienced archies are.  They don't understand the nuances of working up take-offs and bidding.  They don't know where corners are cut, or largess is inserted, and how the details of the process can be wrongfully, unethically, and even criminally manipulated.  

Good golf, interesting design, fun factors might be a factor for critics.  But, whether construction techniques were sound, or a project was bloated and costs were so out of line that fees are excessively high resulting in rediculously high green fees to the consumer, are more identifiable by a trained archie, than a verbose critic.

There are a few critics-writers that were not trained archies, that self learned enough to be well informed critic-writers.  I'll put RW in that camp. He has put his time in and knows more than many critics about the details of the profession.  So, for that, I"ll give him the benefit, listen to what he has to say, and seriously consider it.

But, this is a long way around the barn to say that I agree with Tom MacWood above, that archies would serve the advancement of their profession more so, if when they see something wrong, poorly designed, or idiotic, they come right out and say it and debate it.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

You failed to understand my point. When you are the "architectural critic" for the leading publication in golf -- people may disagree with that statement but the circulation of the pub and it's longevity convey such status -- you cannot be actively involved in the design / consultant arena.

Why?

Like I said before -- if someone is the drama critic for a pub like the NY Times -- they cannot be actively involved with the production of a play or musical on Broadway. The clear conflicts seriously undermine the credibility of the
publication -- notwithstanding the disclosures made. Tom -- you raise a straw man argument -- when you intertwine political correctness and what people did previously. Just because someone did something years ago doesn't change the facts of what constitutes breaches of conflict of interest TODAY.

Like I said -- it's either umpire or baseball player. The argument you make "that this is golf" holds no water to me.

I never said Ron Whitten or the others you mentioned can't be critical -- clearly Whitten's piece in the April issue demonstrates that and I do agree the magazine should avail themselves of his considerable talents versus articles on how to prevent slices and the like.

When you say "everyone is up in arms" -- you must be addressing someone else because I applaud the article for what it provided and I do agree that Whitten's involvement has been kept to a lower level than it should be given his considerable talents.

The issue is that Digest holds a particular position among all golf publications on the planet -- that perception -- real or otherwise -- forces it into a position where "appearances" do matter and I would hope their credibility is an issue they would want to protect at all costs in order to enhance their overall standing. Publications like the NY Times and the WS Journal know full well how important their credibility is and seek to protect it at all costs or they too suffer the consequences -- as the Times has.

The broader question is what is gained from having an architectural "critic" position at such a publication if that same person is then actively involved in the field? Does such a position undermine that person in any critical commentary they might offer? Why give ammunition to those whose feelings are the focus of such commentaries and allow them the opportunity to say such words are potentially biased or self-serving.

Media people occupy a certain position -- they should know full well that when they weigh in with commentary / concerns / issues the very first question raised by those being discussed will be their (media's) so-called
"independence" -- why squander the core arguments when the focus becomes one of objectivity?

[Dan Kelly]

Just now got around to the article.

Two small questions:

1. Re: "Fazio is a factory firm," says panelist Gib Papazian, a golf writer. "There is nothing seminal [or] original about his architecture."
             ------------------ I'm very curious -- not that it's even conceivably significant -- about that "[or]."
             Gib: What did you actually say (or, perhaps, write)?  

2. Re: If Fazio's designs are something short of championship caliber, why are so many of them on America's 100 Greatest? The answer is that only two categories—Shot Values and Resistance to Scoring—deal with challenges presented by a course, but the remaining categories—Design Variety, Aesthetics, Memorability, Conditioning, even Ambience—reward the ephemeral, "feel-good" qualities of a design. Plus, there are some panelists who confuse great cosmetics with great Shot Values. Fazio's bold and beautiful fairway bunkers, for instance, rarely pose strategic challenges, but it takes a number of rounds to realize that.
                  -------------- Who determines the rating categories? Who chooses the panelists?

[George Pazin]

Matt -

How do you explain the fact that the NY Times Book Review uses authors to review other authors?

[Dan Kelly]

Darn near everyone in the golf business has conflicts of interests going on.  Some of them are out in the open, but a lot are not.

Tom --

Would you please elaborate? I'm not asking you to reveal any names, places or dates -- just to make a list of the *sorts* of conflicts that darn near everyone in the golf business has.

Thanks in advance.

Dan

P.S. Seems to me that Matt Ward is right. Without mentioning any specific names:

A golf-course critic has a *clear* conflict of interest when he gets into the business of designing golf courses.

I don't know if it's an unacceptable conflict (given proper disclosures), but it's silly to say that it isn't a conflict of interest:

-- The critic's interest as a critic is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about his opinions of the golf courses he sees and plays, and about his opinions of the architects of those golf courses. (Never mind that it rarely works out that way.)

-- The critic's interest as a designer/co-designer/consultant is to get additional designer/co-designer/consultant jobs down the line.

Raise your hand if you think the second won't get in the way of the first.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()