Fazio and Oakmont

[John Shimp]

One thing I really liked about this years US Open was not having to hear about the "Open Doctor" Rees Jones.  I did hear though that Tom Fazio did some work at Oakmont in preparation for the tournament.  Does anyone know what Fazio did to change the course?  The tree cutting by the sup and golf committee was all extensively discussed as was the Fownes long-time influence on the course and club culture.  

Did Fazio deserve not to be discussed?

[Jim Franklin]

I think he did some of the bunker changes and the drainage ditches. Those non-water hazards are brutal.

[TEPaul]

Fazio (Marzolff) was apparently Oakmont's consulting architect for the last some years leading up to the Open. That included everything they did, tee additions, bunkers, bunker additions, you name it----whatever consulting architects on a restoration/Open Prep do.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom Marzolf of the Fazio office has orchestrated everything you saw — from weighing in on tree removal to all of the tees, bunkers, greens work and fairway delineation. He has lived and breathed Oakmont for the past 6+ years as I ujnderstand it.

[Mike Nuzzo]

He has lived and breathed Oakmont for the past 6+ years as I understand it.

How many hours would equate to living and breathing Oakmont?

His accomplishments over the same time period - President ASGCA, including other elected positions - 6 new courses (my minimum guess) - several renovations - seems like too busy a schedule to live and breathe one course.  Why would they need that much of an architects time?

Mr. Zimmers certainly did and does live and breathe Oakmont.

Cheers

[Joel_Stewart]

It was surprising that Oakmont used Fazio?  I played with a board member of Oakmont last year and he said that they told him everything they wanted to do.  As an example, they would take him out to a spot and say "we want this bunker replaced to look like this" and show them the old photos.  He gave me the impression that Fazio had no say at all.   I've thought about why do you need Fazio or anybody to do that work???

Furthermore, I saw an article that MacDonald & Sons was hired in 2005 to rebuild some tees and reconstruct all the bunkers.  Again, why use Fazio or anybody for that fact as an architect.

Lastly, I heard from another architect who talked with the people at Oakmont a few years ago that Fazio waived his fee in order to get the job.

[Forrest Richardson]

"Lived and breathed", Mike, is a term of endearment one uses to describe how someone enjoyes what they do and how they get into their work.

I detest posts like yours because they serve no purpose other than to suggest I am either wrong, or that Mr. Marzolf and his passion is somehow not as described.

John certainly lives and breathes Oakmont, too. But greenkeepers have a different relationship with courses than golf architects.

- - -

Joel — I would classify those comments as rumors. I have a copy of Fazio's master plan for Oakmont from 5+ years ago. It has gone through several versions, including tweaks based on the USGA, members and trials to see how certain bunkers and ditch work evolved. (For the record, members nearly always point and tell us what to do...but that doesn't mean they get their way, nor that they may know what they want in the first place. It is the designer's job to sort through all the opinions and requests and get results.)

[Mike Sweeney]

Lastly, I heard from another architect who talked with the people at Oakmont a few years ago that Fazio waived his fee in order to get the job.

I think that Fazio sonofabitch smokes too!  

Joel,

It is possible just possible that a guy who has done major championship renovations at Augusta, Merion, Winged Foot and Oakmont, four fairly different types of courses, simply knows how to set up a major championship course?

Is it possible, just possible that a board member from one of these clubs may know less than Tom Fazio and Company?

[Mike Nuzzo]

I didn't think I was questioning his work ethics or desires, but your choice of words.  They seemed grandiose to me.

Sorry Forrest.

Cheers

[Geoffrey Childs]

They did not THANKFULLY touch/soften any of the greens.  The telecast did mention expanding at least one green ro original size by replacing an RTJ bunker. They also mentioned that area with a pin was fairly flat.

Winged Foot redid/softened 5 greens on their East course - will they do any on the West under Marzluff?

Will the great success of Oakmont and especially its greens have any impact on Merion which is being asked (I believe) to soften the slopes on #5, 12 and 15?  

Hopefully, Oakmont working so well will give Merion the amunition to keep those greens intact.

[Forrest Richardson]

GJ — So, the work to No. 2 green was done magically by elves dressed in Oakmont caddie vests, each weilding a cup of Tinker Bell dust? Or, the massive expansions back to the square shapes at fronts and corners were Mother Nature's contribution?

[Geoffrey Childs]

Forrest

I like the elves story best - yes it was elves.

I mentioned the expansion (I guess of #2) by replacing the BUNKER that RTJ had put in years before.  

Did they soften any of the slopes on #2?

Did they soften any of the slopes on ANY other Oakmont green?

Did any of the other greens expansions aside from #2 require anything more then mowing?  At Yale superintendent Scott Ramsay recovered about an additional 25-30% of greens size all by himself with his staff by mowing.  It required no architect.

Having seen the Open this past week do you support the softening of any slopes on Oakmont's greens?

[George Pazin]

I think a good bit of the work pre-dates Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Fazio, which is not to diminish their efforts, but rather to highlight those of the membership.

[Forrest Richardson]

GJ — It does conjur an interesting image...elves dressed in caddie vests.

No. 2 was softened at the rear and enlarged. I think the front was altered, but everyone denies it. The rest of the work was expansions, which translates to softening because it allows more positions that are not severe, and therefore a "softening" of sorts.

George strikes an interesting point — Fownes always intended the course to be changed and bettered, so it has always been tinkered with. But, the changes we have seen in the past 4-5 years are at the direction of the Fazio office, working of course, with the members and USGA.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Forrest

Thanks for the details.

Perhaps this deserves a separate discussion but I have not looked at greens expansions as softening of the green.  The experience I have direct knowledge of from many plays both before and after expansion comes at Yale and at Fenway.  In both cases the pin locations recovered can be diabolical.  The new front locations on #7 at Yale and the back right pin are among the most difficult on the golf course.  If a benign position is also recovered that's OK too as it adds diversity and was part of the original intent.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Would it be possible for this group to give Fazio props for the work?  Everyone liked the course, he was the consulting architect, so why not?

It would not be unusual for a member to say that they decided everything, just as a Donald Trump might claim that he designed his courses and that the other Faz just implemented his ideas.  Even if true, and I am sure its somewhat true in many cases, there is a lot of work getting from "give me this picture" to giving them that picture!

BTW, if Fazio waived or reduced his fee to get into the upper end club restoration market, he would not have been the first to do so.  Several well known gca's have done this, to my understanding.

And, if he did it, it made a lot of business sense - use profits from the then booming new course market to stake a claim in what he might see coming as the major market of the next decade to keep his firm going.  And, as we once discussed here, I believe he was aware that despite his success, few of his new courses were getting championships played on them, and by working at these type clubs, he is enhancing his resume.

[George Pazin]

Would it be possible for this group to give Fazio props for the work?

Nope.

When "they" do good work at Oakmont, and questionable work at ANGC, it implies to me that "they" are doing very little of the decision making. I guess it depends on what one's definition of consulting is.

Sorry, that's how I read it, I could of course be wrong.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Would it be possible for this group to give Fazio props for the work?  Everyone liked the course, he was the consulting architect, so why not?

Jeff

The bunkers looked and played great. Props for that.

I only mentioned that the greens were left intact (but for expansion (good) and recovery of green space that was converted to a bunker (also good). I mentioned this hopefully so the USGA will not press Merion to touch their 5th, 12th and 15th greens expept to mow them out to the edge of the green pads.

[Mike_Cirba]

I thought the USGA flat out denies being in the course architecture business??    

I'm sure it wasn't the members of Merion who suggested flattening the 12th and 15th greens.   Who's brilliant idea was that??

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

The USGA says they are not architects, but have always felt they should control the general set up for their tournaments, at least to a large degree.  For that matter, while their agronomists aren't gca's they sometimes make recommendations based on the agronomic conditions they see, which some feel gets into architecture a bit too much.

George,

I think you fail to take into account that generally, Oakmont was deemed difficult enough for a US Open (although new tees were added for length on a few holes) while Augusta called them into "toughen" the course.  Also, in both cases, Fazio had to try to match the existing styles of what was there and the styles are of course, different.

The owners directive is enough to change the direction of the work Fazio did, as it would for any gca called in.  Apparently you see trying to achieve the Owners goals and matching design styles as a bad thing, but it is not, at least IMHO.  Overall, their process (including level of owner involvement) was probably the same or similar, even if the results were not.

[George Pazin]

Apparently you see trying to achieve the Owners goals and matching design styles as a bad thing, but it is not, at least IMHO.  Overall, their process (including level of owner involvement) was probably the same or similar, even if the results were not.

It's the latter sentence I disagree with, particularly the parenthetical.

I certainly would never say trying to achieve the Owners goals and matching design styles is a bad thing, that is silliness bordering on offensive.

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

So you don't think the level of Owner involvement would have been similar on both courses?  How so, if I may ask?

I know Oakmont had the USGA tournament set up guys involved, as well as interested members.  However, at Augusta, the club itself is the tournament committee and the greens committee might not exist beyond the chairman.

I know that Marzoff spent years at Augusta charting shots as a basis for design. I doubt he had that op at Oakmont.

Other than that, I do think that the process - much like the scientific process of goal setting, ideaa postulating, researching, proposing and finalizing a design was about the same.  (It was mentioned that Oakmont went through many iterations, which is evidence of this process)

However, if the goals were different, the results would be different.

Of course, I say this as a gca who has been through similar processes, but who has no first hand knowledge of exactly how either of those master renovation plans came about, so I could be wrong.

[Sean Leary]

I'm sure it wasn't the members of Merion who suggested flattening the 12th and 15th greens.   Who's brilliant idea was that??

Mike,

Do you know this as fact? If it is (which it may be), was it the USGA or Fazio's idea?

[John Kavanaugh]

I for one was not impressed with the look of the bunkers.  I found the layout of the church pews to be far too clean geometrically.

[TEPaul]

"I for one was not impressed with the look of the bunkers.  I found the layout of the church pews to be far too clean geometrically."

JohnK:

I know, I agree with you they were pretty clean looking weren't they?

In that case if they are wrong or if that look is wrong and a big mistake it has to be the fault of one of two people or even perhaps both.

Tom Fazio and/or President Bush!