Tom Fazio and "Anti-Strategy"

[Tim Weiman]

Tommy:

There is a difference between bashing and reporting on a golf course, even if the reporting is "negative".  In other words, a "negative" report about a golf course is not automatically bashing.

Criticism can be entirely appropriate.

My quarrel with Mike comes from not identifying the golf course he wrote about to make a general point about Fazio designs. Mike's commentary may be completely fair, but how am I (or others reading the thread) supposed to know?  How are we to check out what Mike is saying for ourselves?

You will note that when Tom Doak wrote The Confidential Guide he signed his name, identified the courses he wrote about and explained why he gave any course a less than glowing report. It seems to me that Tom set an example we should all follow.

After re-reading Mike's original post, I'll agree that he met two of the three criteria mentioned above. Had he met all three, you would not have heard any suggestion of Fazio bashing, at least not from me.  After all, what's the point of a discussion group if people aren't free to offer negative as well as positive comments on a golf course?

Mike mentioned being a gentleman and I understand that. Also, I don't want to be a hypocrit. Twice this year I visited prominent venues where Fazio was engaged as a consultant with the understanding that I NOT write about my observations on Golfclubatlas.  

Fair enough.  But, I don't think we should lose sight of what makes Golfclubatlas special. It may be the only place (in the media) where people can freely discuss the architectural merits of golf courses. If architectural criticism is deserved, I hope it will be expressed appropriately. By "appropriate" I am simply referring to the three criteria cited above.

One last thing. I understand we all walk a fine line sometimes between honestly expressing our views and being a gentleman. With my home club I try to handle this by openly discussing my views about course features but usually avoiding any discussion of rankings.  If people want to have a golf architecture discussion, I'm happy to join them.  If they want to have a ranking discussion, I recuse myself.

I hope this strikes the right balance between being a club member and being an active GCA participant.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim;

I'm glad that you understand my reasons for not mentioning the course name.  I do know about the one course you played where not mentioning it directly here was part of the understanding, and I respect that.

So, why bring up the issue in the first place?  Simply because it was the second brand new course by Tom Fazio in the past two years I've played that had the exact design philosophy, which I found to be notable.  

I also believe that you'll find my statements to be detailed
"observations", as opposed to dogmatic value judgements.  

JakaB;

I woke in the middle of the night and it hit me what you meant by "pandering to the newbies".  I certainly didn't mean to go for a "shocking" headline to this thread, but anti-strategy seemed to be the most accurate description I could come up with to describe what I'd seen.  I do understand how the term might be inflammatory, but I did find that it to be more distinctive and descriptive of the reality than simply saying the course had "no strategy"...the strategy instead was the exact opposite of what is commonly understood as "classic strategy".  

Sleep, anyone?  

[Tim Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

Once again I'm reminded of a story told by Professor Marion Levy about Wooodrow Wilson

Wilson apparently surprised members of the Washington press corp by telling them that being President of Princeton University was much tougher than being President of the United States.

Professor Levy offered his theory of why this was so, why the politics of university life were so tough compared to Washington.  "It's because the stake are so low", Levy opined.

So it is with matters of golf architecture.  Issues such as bunker placement can quickly take on the importance of world affairs!

Anyway, back to Fazio and strategy.  Years ago I owned property at Wild Dunes and played the course many times. I can cite three examples where the "strategy" was more "classic" in nature:

#4 - This par three played somewhere around 170 yards.  Shots to the right side if the green were longer and more risky, bringing the wetlands more into play.  When the pin was on the right, a conservatively played shot to the left invited bogey, but going directly at the pin invited double bogey if you didn't pull off the shot.

#13 - A dogleg left par four to a somewhat narrow but deep green.  The perfect drive was a big right to left draw.  When ideally played you could play the approach with far less club than playing conservatively to the right center of the fairway.  But, if you over cooked your tee shot, a blind approach and other forms of trouble could emerge.

#18 - A dog leg right 540 par five along the ocean.  The only chance to go for this green was to play tightly down the right side, but miss by just a little and a lost ball amidst the sand dunes became a real possibility. Whenever a made this mistake, I always looked out over that wide landing area to the left and wondered why I was so foolish, especially with the prevailing left to right wind.  I found this hole to be the perfect finish, especially in a match play situation.

Wild Dunes doesn't get much respect thse days.  I hate the over building which has taken place and Hurricane Hugo beat the place up, but I'd hardly call the course "anti-strategy".

[A_Clay_Man]

Tim Weiman- I am fascinated by your statement of being invited, more than once, with a pretext of NOT commenting on the course on this website.

Could you elaborate, Please? Why do you think that was? Were they embarassed because of what you might say, or just trying to be exclusive, like the Preserve's attitutde?

[alien visitor]

Mr. Weiman

The course that started this discussion is set very near where a #1 PCR is based.

The comments about Woodrow Wilson also lend a clue as to location.

[Tim Weiman]

Adam,

You may remember it was not that long ago we would occasionally see posts from golf industry personnel insisting that what is said on Golfclubatlas didn’t matter one bit.  This is no longer true. GCA is on the radar screen, no doubt.

As this forum grows in stature, we can expect more efforts to influence what people say - or don't say - here.   Why? Because despite whatever shortcomings our discussion group may still have, Golfclubatlas  is the one prominent place where one can find criticism of golf courses (and their architects), instead of just the typical marketing oriented promotional materials.

I would not make any assumptions about the reasons hosts may have for requesting that you not comment on GCA.  My experience suggests each case is different and it may not have anything to do with being “embarrassed” or “exclusive”.  

[Mark_Huxford]

Paul Daley's new book finishes with a little cameo by Pete Dye, who states:

We now do not reward the player capable of a long carry shot with the easy shot to the green, and leave the short hitter with a difficult second shot. While this strategy was a favourite of the old time architects, we now design so the long hitter has a challenging second shot, and the short hitter with the longer second shot will have an easier opening to at least part of the green.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark Huxford;

Interesting that Pete Dye would say that and then design so many holes where one has to carry diagonal hazards to gain the preferential angle for the approach shot.

In fact, if I had to characterize Pete's design style, that methodology of "angle strategy" would be at the top of the list.  

[CHrisB]

Interesting that Pete Dye would say that and then design so many holes where one has to carry diagonal hazards to gain the preferential angle for the approach shot.

Mike, maybe in reality the order should be reversed; that is, after designing so many holes where one has to carry diagonal hazards to gain the preferential angle for the approach shot (like the old masters), Pete has turned over a new leaf in response to the huge gains in length seen in the last several years and is designing holes differently(?).  Hence the use of the word "now"(?).

[Mike_Cirba]

ChrisB;

Then perhaps it's not coincidental that with very few exceptions, Pete's work in recent years has failed to live up to his greatest efforts.  

Bulle Rock might be fairly called a course where Pete is beginning to toy with "anti-strategy".



Thankfully, Whistling Straits (Straits) is not, although that course suffers in my mind from bit of over shaping.

[Mark_Huxford]

Mark Huxford;

Interesting that Pete Dye would say that and then design so many holes where one has to carry diagonal hazards to gain the preferential angle for the approach shot.

In fact, if I had to characterize Pete's design style, that methodology of "angle strategy" would be at the top of the list.  

Mike, I assumed from his feature interview that Pete Dye is a man of few words, but this piece is so short it's more like a bulletin than an essay. In a matter of fact way he makes it sound like he and Alice have got their heads together and from now on this is what they are going to do. States modern equipment and watered fairways as the reasons for it. A complete departure from his earlier golf courses you could say. The title for the essay is 'Reversing the reward' if that helps you.

On the left is a photo of the 6th at The Architects Golf Club, NJ. Don't know whether this is significant or not. It just shows an approach view to a pin tucked behind a bunker. Not a hole plan like Hanse and others have included with their essays. Very good book.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark;

Good to see that Pete Dye remains such an enigma!

I can't imagine the reason for the use of the par three sixth hole (supposedly in the style of Harry Colt on a course designed by Stephen Kay and Ron Whitten) to illustrate Dye's point.  I played the course with Paul Turner, who's probably seen as much of Colt's work as anyone, and he didn't feel that it was particularly representative.

From a philosophical standpoint, I'm not sure I understand what Pete is getting at, however.  The basic question remains...If there is NO ADVANTAGE to be gained by challenging a hazard, which is the heart of strategic design, then what is the point of challenging it??

If I can carry the ball 280 yards on a 460 yard par four, rolling out to about 310, then why should I play near a hazard if my second shot is from a tougher angle, or a forced carry, or an undulating lie, even if I only have 150 remaining?  Playing safely might leave me 165 with a wide open view, given the "anti-strategy" school of thought.  

1 + 1 still doesn't equal 3, despite technological improvements and modern course conditioning!  

If you look again at the 9th hole at Bulle Rock in the picture above, why in God's name would anyone attempt the carry over the lake, only to be left with a bad angle, a forced carry, and trouble behind?

Is Pete trying to "fool" golfers into making bad decisions?  I'm afraid that kind of thing only works ONCE.

Is he trying to force golfer's to play additional yardage?  Then, why doesn't he just break down and build 7,500 - 7,800 yard courses from the tips?  

Oh, that's right, he's already doing that.  

Frankly, I think that Pete is a bit perplexed at what to do next and is reaching for answers.  To a large extent, he has always built his courses in reaction to the need to challenge the best players in the world, and the rapid advancements in technology coupled with the USGA and R&A's "non-reaction" has left him with little left in his bag of tricks.

Ironically, Pete Dye is the same guy who built Harbour Town at about 6700 yards as a reaction to the "Monster" courses built by RTJ Sr., Dick Wilson, Joe Finger, etc...

Perhaps this just shows the futility of trying to build courses in reaction to the games of less than .001% of the world's golfers...especially when the ball can be driven over 300 yards at will by so many of them and the powers that be still deny that the genie's out of the technological bottle.  

  

[Mark_Huxford]

Mike, when attacking a hazard or other feature off the tee in order to gain an easier following shot, I think the key word is 'easier' and not 'easy'. Ideally the shot remaining should still be quite difficult. I think this gray area - this twist - is the key to great strategic holes like the Road hole.

Though little over sixty-five-hundred yards my home course seems to have built-in defenses against technology in this manner. All the doglegs for instance play like curves so you can never hit the ball far enough off the tee to reach a point where you are then looking straight down the long axis of the green. You still get rewarded with better angles commensurate with the excellence of your tee shots though.

I don't know what Pete Dye has seen recently to make him want to shift, but won't this trend make even more avian golfers and provide less incentive for mid-handicappers to get better by attempting shots they have hitherto been unable to play or whatever AM said? Why would you attempt a hard shot that gave you a worse angle, even if it was shorter? What is the difference between this new kind of course and the steeplechase variety Darwin, MacKenzie and others thought of as an object of derision?

I know I am already becoming a one-dimensional golfer these days and so are lots of my friends. I suspect we are all going to be easy meat for Cape Kidnappers when it opens.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark;

You ask some great questions in your last post!

I like the word "preferred", as opposed to "easy" or "easier".  

A shot that successfully challenges a hazard should result in a preferred position, and if I'm going against the grain of successful architects like Dye and Fazio, then I'd like to hear more of their thinking because it doesn't make any sense to me for the reasons you've outlined.  

The Road hole is a great example, which you mentioned.  A shot that is aggressively and successfully played down the right hand side (over the hotel and near OB), leave the golfer with a preferred position down the length of the green, and shortens the hole as well.  

The approach shot is not "easy" by any stretch.  One still has to thread the ball in between the road hole bunker and the pavement, and have the distance control to get to the correct level of the green, but ultimately, one is rewarded simply by having the better angle and shorter approach.

By comparison, the player who bails left is left with a longer shot and a difficult (though still possible) shot to a green that becomes very shallow and might require a carry over the bunker, with the added pressure of trying to stop it before it bounds to the road and wall beyond.  

That the same player has the option of trying to place the ball short right of the green, and then the option of trying to get up and down from there....is part of the beauty of strategic design.  

Course design that dictates always playing "away" from hazards to gain the preferred position will never replace it in terms of interest, excitement, challenge, and daring in my honest opinion.

[TEPaul]

When Mike Cirba says above;

'If there's NO ADVANTAGE' to be gained in challenging a hazard, which is at the heart of strategic design, then what is the point of challenging it?'

Aah, good question, but it should not be assumed from that question that there never can be a time when this happens or when this can be created in design.

I've seen a few holes like this and frankly they're some of my favorite holes anywhere! They are that because ultimately they can be extremely sophisticated!

Interestingly, all the ones I can think of at the moment are short par 4s and in a way that very well might be the necessary ingredient!

But it cannot be said that there's NO ADVANTAGE to taking a real risk and carrying a hazard for a perferred positon. It has to be made to look like it's an advantage although in reality it may not be!

How can I say, though, it may not be? Because the holes I'm thinking of I have seen in play for so long I know what works best for almost every level of golfer over time and I know what doesn't!

The two that're the best examples to me are Maidstone's #17 and GMGC #8.

The fact is both have some penal hazard to deal with on the drive to get what appears to be the best advantage for the approach shot! And the additional fact is that by trying that risky option (on the drive) you can get very close to the green! The latter might be the ultimate key! For some reason so many golfers are seduced into thinking the closer you get--very near in other words, the better off you should be!

Wrong! And for the reason why---you just have to look at the greens and green-ends! Both are beautifull bunkered and small complex shaped green that simply DO NOT reward the attempt of some delicate little floating lob shot with almost no spin which basically only players like Phil Mickelson is accomplished enough at! And by accomplished ENOUGH at, I really mean that!

And that's the key to it!! I've seen so many very good golfers take that high risk option on both those holes and then faced with the highly complicated little soft shot needing to carry difficult fronting bunkers to shallow or narrow greens and short pins over the greenside hazards just blow those shots and sometimes really badly!

Let's just say they blow that shot a great deal more than the 100yd full wedge or sand wedge that they're far better at.

But for some reason they rarely ever take that into consideration when standing on the tee faced with a high risk carry that will get them very close to those greens that they THINK has to be a great reward!

This kind of high risk strategy that leaves a golfer what he thinks is an advantge but ultimately really isn't is REAL.

To me, again, it makes for one of the best types of holes--a hole that seems to have an almost endless ability to FAKE OUT golfers, particularly good ones, in this way!

It does seem though to take a few necessary ingredients to create this kind of hole. Probably the most important though is the one that seduces so many golfers into thinking if they get extremely close to something it must be best!

In another wrinklish way #10 Riviera also plays on this interesting theme!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

I agree with you that such "fooled you" holes can work extremely well as "anti-strategy", and it only takes getting burned with the aggressive play a few times before one realizes that perhaps they need to play the hole a bit more gingerly.  #12 at Pine Valley is perhaps another great example.

And you and Chris are correct that ideal courses should include such holes, no question.  His new, related thread on the ideal golf hole goes further into this by expanding the thinking into "multi-optional" holes, which I agree are in fact, ideal.

However, my original point here was that the preponderance of holes on the two Fazio courses I originally mentioned utilize this anti-strategy theme to such a degree as to effectively make the course an anti-strategy one.  

In my mind, this is far less than ideal.  Variety, balance, risk, reward, deception, and temptation are all elements that should be used in the cook book makeup of an ideal course, but the one-dimensionality of the holes I mentioned start to become a very shopworn theme after one faces about 6 or 7 of them on any particular course.

Interestingly, multi-optional holes, which we agree are some of the most ideal golf holes, most often require some type of center hazards, such as the Hell bunker on the 14th at TOC, but such "in fairway" hazards are not to be found on the original examples I raised, either.    

[MikeJones]

First post here although I've been a long time lurker for many months. I must admit I've not looked through all the replies in this thread but I'd like to respond to Mike's observation in the very first post regarding the 4th hole.

The difficult shot off the tee isn't to finish close to the bunkers. That would pretty much be the easiest position to finish in considering the slope of the fairway. The most difficult shot would be to work the ball into the fairway slope and finish on the left side and then of course that would leave the easier approach shot in.

It may not be the most obvious strategy but its a nice twist.

[Mike_Cirba]

MikeJ;

That's an interesting point you raise about the 4th.  I'm not so sure what's all that unique about requiring a draw or straight shot up the left side to get into the higher, safe side of the fairway on the left, but I will grant you that the slope of the land goes left to right.  Right is DEAD (steep fall off) and scary, I think you'd agree, so it just seems strange that the architect didn't try to utilize that feature into the strategy of the hole and basically rewards those who play away from trouble.

Off the top of my head, and with my course map back at home, I'd ask if you think the same "anti-strategy" also exists on 1, 2, and 9 on the front side alone.  Better yet, perhaps you might describe a hole where traditional notions of strategy are well-utilized.  

Thanks for joining into the discussion here Mike.  Welcome!

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

What you seem to be talking about as "anti-strategy" as distinct from what I'm talking about--faking out the golfer with design--is definitely not one and the same.

Real anti-strategy to me would be nothing much more than total one dimensionality--probably roadmapping completely!

Even if there's more than one available option, even if there are many, if no more than basically one is ever used by golfers the hole is one dimensional and sans strategy--or interesting choice producing strategy.

There's hardly anything worse in design than some option (strategy) that's never used--that never even tempts a single player, that never even fakes him out!

And furthermore, in considering the holes I mentioned that you say have options that after a player gets burned a few times by that option then gets smart and doesn't try that option again.

I say that's not true at all with those holes. The holes I mentioned have some amazing facility to continue to tempt players (and reems of them) over and over again! It never ends! They screw up so much more than if they'd try another option--an option that connects two other shots to produce a much better overall long term result!

How do holes like that manage to keep seducing even good golfers into this interesting development?

It's simple really! Every now and then it gives them a reward with that other option--it gives them their birdie! The fact that they screw up so much more trying it never seems to occur to them--or even that they probably make more birdies the other way!

In a way this phenomenon is about the flip side of the coin with many goflers that if they happen to birdie a truly demanding and challenging hole there must be something wrong with that hole--that it must be easy somehow. They may even hang onto that extraordinary belief although the next 20 times they bogie the hole or worse! It's amazing!

It's fascinating really and just denotes the complexity of golf itself--and highlights two of the biggest overall seductions (and occasional misconceptions) in all of golf---to hit the ball as far as possible, no matter what and to get as close to something as possible for the next shot, no matter what!!!

[Tommy Naccarato]

Tom,
From my viewpoint, and what is the basis of most of my complaints about Fazio is that he isn't the King of Framing, he is the King of Containment, opting to build up the sides and create from there.  There is not one aspect of natural contour used throughout, it is all about what exists around it in a visual sense, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the strategy, in this case, providing "anti-strategy."

I think of this stuff as parabolic fairways if you will, because it is all about playability in the fairways and the strength of his designs is usually found in and around the greens where he utilizes built-up kidney or L-shaped greens of various dimensions and protects them with bunkers or even meandering creeks. This means the tough pin position is usually the back pin, unless he chooses to utilze false fronts, with the built-up nature of the greens, add some tough and interesting placements up-front.

For an architect that says he doesn't utilize computers in his designs, I certainly find it ironic that so many of his greens are so similar and have too many similar charteristics. I would say that the par 3, 14th at The Quarry At La Quinta is a good green, but then you go to a course like Oak Creek or Shadow Creek where the greens are not only repetiticious, but pretty mundane.

Cheers

[MikeJones]

Mike, thanks for the welcome. I'm sure I didn't say that the challenge of that particular hole was unique I was just questioning your theory about "anti-strategy" on that hole from your description.

Although I don't claim to be as knowledgable as many of those here I have had some experience playing some great courses around the world as a professional player. I can tell you that accurately positioning a tee shot on a sloping fairway is one of the harder challenges you'll have to face from the tee whatever level you play at.

I'm not sure why I see any good reason for always basing a holes strategy around its most penal feature. Maybe this is what some people think of as misdirection. Any good golf strategist will tell you to look at a hole from back to front if you want to figure out which is the best way to play it. Those who take a quick look at the worst trouble and wrongly assume they should be close to it to have the best angle etc will be rightly punished by their lack of forward planning.

[Steve Lang]

Hey y'all.. look at http://209.35.56.208/treetops/fazio/course/index.htmland tell me you wouldn't enjoy playing golf there.  Isn't that what its all about?

Last summer we played the Treetops Fazio course on a twilight rate and but for a marshall issuing a thunderstorm/lightening warning to get off the course and a slow foursome we ran into stopping the approach shot to 18, would have gotten all the holes in.  I shot a 79(w/ESC) just having fun, trying to play quickly, taking the simplistic cues from the visuals and written aids available.  But then, I'm interested in gc-architecture.

While I have to concur with the anti-strategy or psuedo/faux strategy type conceptualiztions offered on this thread to some considerable degree, even here at one of Mr F's favorite efforts, I'll always remember executing the shots I intended as much as what the course really demanded or insinuated I consider in the way of strategy.  So I have to make a personal distinction in course designs/strategy for championship play, resort play, and club play.  

I'll particularly remember #9, drawing a 2-wood tee shot down the fairway from the side-hill tee, and lifting a 5-iron to the left side of the blind elevated green as instructed and finding my ball on the green, in the center about 10 feet from the pin, and yes, I made the putt.  First time birdie, pure dumb luck, but three well executed shots.  So I feel strategy has to be a relative issue.  Execution is the fuel that powers strategy decisions.

For pros with their 265-280+ yard carries and the gca associated with those distances, its a far different design/game than that played at most resorts or clubs.  The folks I know who can do that length are few and far between and more often than not, those gca features are just something for them to brag about like slain dragons. BORING.  

The reality i see is that few courses will ever host major type national or international championship events and many many many will only do so in their dreams, but everyone wants to hype having a "championship" type course.  UNfortunately, there are those whose names infer such, if not producing such.  Alas, in the end,.. access, parking, and tent area has more to do with championship venue selection than gca, but I diverge..

If the modern game execution continues to evolve in capabilties, then the gca must continue with faux-hazards, counter-intuitive ones etc. in the mix of all measures to be called upon to protect par from all takers.

Should classic design work forever or is it too formulaic?  Does it matter that only 5 or 15% of golfers find a hazard at a resort?  How about at a club?  Would they be eliminated in a tourney?  

I have to believe a professional, in any profession, has more than dumb luck going for them.  I expect that 18 holes may not be enough holes to truly test the future golfer.

[GeoffreyC]

Brought to the front for Hidden Gem

This discussion was started by a round at The Ridge at Back Brook.

[GeoffreyC]

Again to the front for hidden gem

[Hidden_Gem]

Geoffrey -

Thanks you for providing the interesting thread that was created my Mr Cirba.

I did a bit of checking in regards to the "computer generated" routing, and found out that Fazio's 2 best(?) right-hand men, (Andy Banfield & Tom Griswold?) were very involved in this project. There were a number of holes that were changed drastically, (5 on the back 9) from the original routing.

One in particular was #17, which was originally designed as a short (driveable?) 4 par. (Now a par 3)

Back to the "anti-strategy" of #4 with the 2 bunkers adorning the right side of fairway. Don't you think part of the rational in putting them there was to serve as more of a "containment" (from balls being in total jail) than as a risk/reward carry, or am I just way of base here?

[Tags:]

Tags: