[Jay Flemma]

"Tommy warned me he was going to martial up his buddies to try to blast me and this is it.  This was a planned ambush, nothing more."

TommyN warned you?

Now, THAT totally confuses me.

Seemingly this thread takes Tom Fazio to task, at least it seems to take his words and deeds to task.

TommyN, to my knowledge, has never in his entire life had a single postive word or thought about Tom Fazio.

So why would TommyN be trying to ambush anyone over this particular thread?

I'm totally buffaloed now.    

Tom, other people have told me that tommy is still pissed off and he himself told me the same thing himself and he warned me that  he was going to be hypercritical of me in other threads and in IMs to me.

I wouldn't sell you crazy, Tommy.  I know you're fully stocked.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jay,
I'm done with this. (and you)

[Rich Goodale]

I can understand the "Rodin" hole (great tyop, whether by Fazio or Jay, even though it's an old one), and I think I understand "martial"ing one's buddies (since we're into bitch-slap mode here), but what exactly is a "perpendicular" hazard?  I'm imagining a cenotaph or Martello tower in the middle of the fairway, but it still doesn't ring any GCA bell, at least for me.

[Jay Flemma]

I can understand the "Rodin" hole (great tyop, whether by Fazio or Jay, even though it's an old one), and I think I understand "martial"ing one's buddies (since we're into bitch-slap mode here), but what exactly is a "perpendicular" hazard?  I'm imagining a cenotaph or Martello tower in the middle of the fairway, but it still doesn't ring any GCA bell, at least for me.

The steno at Turning Stone mis-spelled "Redan."

Well we should, in our response to Mr. Fazio, ask him to clarify whether me means cross-hazards such as the "Great Hazards" Tillie used to construct, burns like Rae's Creek and Swilcan and center line bunkers.  Then we should ask if his definition includes "turning the bunker's axis" so that instead of being parallel to the line of the rough, its horizontal.  say the fairway bunker at 1 at red tail.  brian silva's definition of perpendicular, where the hazard doesn't just sit in the rough, but is turned so that some portion of it must be skirted or carried.  What about the glacier bunker at 4 on BB?  These are issues that Mr. Fazio should be invited to explain his position, hear ours and then engage in a public dialogue with us.

[wsmorrison]

"Or are you pissed that I saw the articles on Philly Cricket Club.  What a hypocrite you are - hiding knowledge from people you don't like.  You remind me more and more of Judge Smails every time you open your mouth with your Some-people-just-don't-belong attitude."

What the heck are you talking about?  You have a disconnect with reality going.  First of all, I don't know what you saw and what you didn't see.  Why would I care if you saw the articles or information I provided on Philadelphia Cricket Club?  I gave the information to the club for dissemination to everyone, members and guests alike that are interested in the architectural history of that significant club.  To think that I would waste my time thinking about depriving you of that information is pathetic.

"Wayne hasn't said WORD 1 about the merits of the piece, he spent each and every thread in an ad hominem attack."

You are strange.  You accuse me of cursing you in a previous post when I did no such thing.  You lied and ignore the fact.  You then respond with a childish reaction in accusing me of not finding any merit in your thread.  That too is a lie.  Here are two.  While they may not be glowing tributes, I didn't have much to work with.

"All kidding aside (honest), if the reports of Fazio's ideas on classic era courses is true, there is some interesting stuff among some very strange writing."

"Just because some of his points are excellent and valid doesn't mean all of his conclusions are.  In fact, it seems they run about 50/50. "

"Let's cut through the BS and focus on the real story (it isn't about Jay Flemma though you wouldn't know it) and that is Fazio and his interventions on classic era courses.  I agree with Jay Flemma, this is a concern of mine.  Jay Flemma is not a concern of mine."

See?  I even agreed with you about the essence of the thread, nothing more.


When you make up stories, such as Tom Naccarato warning you of an attack by a cabal of Flemma haters, that is the final straw.  There hasn't been one person on the whole history of this website that has expressed a more negative opinion of Tom Fazio and his work on classic courses than Tom N.  I don't always agree with Tom but I know clearly where he stands.  I doubt he warned you that he was going to marshal up his buddies to blast you.  In fact, I think you'd like to think you are important enough to warrant such an expenditure of effort.  Sorry to say, you are not.  And by the way, it is marshal troops, not martial.  You do need an editor.  Second of all, I never heard from Tom on this subject so I can categorically state that I am not part of any conspiracy.  Consider that you might be wrong in much of this.

[jim_lewis]

Jay:

In my view, you lost credibility when you suggested that Mike Stranz built "masterpieces" and when you claim that Fazio's greens are flat.

I have played most of Mike's courses, and I judge none of them to resemble a masterpiece.

I have played many (over 60) Fazio courses, and find most of his greens to be very exciting.  If I were to invite you to my club, I could show you some wonderfully contoured and challenging Fazio greens. But I won't.

As memtioned above, many of Fazio's courses are too remote to be considred for any tour event, let alone a major. And many of the private clubs would not want a major tournament. In fact, I can't imagine why any of the great private clubs (like Merion) would want to host a major.


Jim Lewis

[RJ_Daley]

This is going the way of too many threads in the past...  where someone or several posters go too hard at each other on the obscure details of golf course architecture, and who knows more about obscure stuff no one else cares that much about, except us'uns.  While I plead guilty to throwing a critical post up that may have perpetuated and to some extent kept the nattering going, I think we should all back off, and preserve civil discussion.  Whether there is or isn't a background campaingn to discredit a writer, for whatever transgressions that have nothing to do with this forum or ideas expressed here, there is really no need for this back and forth venom.  It is like mobbing in bird flocks.

My own view is that when these pissing matches break out, and we have lost someone who left the group wounded or disgruntled for what ever reason, we lost someone that added to the discussions in passionate ways, whether they had spurious or meritorious arguments.  Can't we offer disagreement of opinions without the venom, least we diminish the body of contributors as a whole and are poorer for it?  Let's set some ego aside and get on with discussion.

I fully recognise that several on this very thread have done just that and didn't get into the personal attacks.

for instance:  Paul C., speaks of the benefits of contemplating fire... I think I'm going to build a nice one in my PC screen and ponder it for a while...  

[Jay Flemma]

Brother William, as always, speaks with the wisdom of those who have been to baskerville

Look guys, I'll make the effort to edit better - will that please you Tony P?  Sometimes, when you have two lives such as I, editing gets less attention than it should and every writer wishes they, of course, had more time.  You should understand that as a writer yourself.

Dick, if you could make some points to Mr. Fazio about the merits of perpendicular hazards, what would they be?  Tom, how about you?  Jim Lewis, you live in Pinehurst?  Why, of all the courses to join there, did you choose a Fazio?  What about Tobacco Road does not resonate with you?

[Bob_Huntley]

I have no dog in this fight but I must say that I am somewhat surprised at the vehemence shown by the author of this thread.

I almost feel that an intemperate remark in emphasising a point opposite to that of the writer may end, not in disharmony, but mayhem.

I propose that we all take a deep breath and go out and hit a bucket of balls.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"but what exactly is a "perpendicular" hazard?  I'm imagining a cenotaph or Martello tower in the middle of the fairway, but it still doesn't ring any GCA bell, at least for me."

Look, Richard, there's already been enough contention on this thread. I don't think we need you adding any latin or Italian profanity to it, towers and bells or not.

"I have no dog in this fight but I must say that I am somewhat surprised at the vehemence shown by the author of this thread."

BobH:

Then hurry out and get a dog and get him into the fight. I'd suggest you get a Jack Russell Terrier. Pound for pound they are about as vicious and vehement as it can get.

[Joe Hancock]

RJ,

I agree in that sometimes people get carried away, say things they shouldn't and then vamoose.

I also agree that everyone likes different styles in writing, as they do in golf. The thing here is that the original post is by a professed writer, and thus should expect people to be intelligent enough to decipher what the writing is trying to convey. It hasn't worked out so well for Jay, for the most part, on this particular piece.

Where I draw my own conclusions is in the actions and reactions.I  must say that when someone is asked to prove what they write and they respond with swearing, name calling and making jokes names out of peoples last names in a public forum, I wonder what the real motives are behind the original post. Mix in some paranoia, accusations and the like, and I'm well on my way to sticking with my light hearted banter and stupid jokes, even if that seems shallow, juvenile and non-productive to this DG.

Joe

p.s I thought Paul C.'s writing was concise, easy to read and to the humorous point....perfect fit for my style!

[TEPaul]

Back to the subject---eg Jay's concern about a pattern of Tom Fazio comments about GCA.

(Oh please, Tom, don't do that to us on page 4! )

Who would like to see a situation that could create some kind of GOLFCLUBATLAS dialogue with Tom Fazio on the pattern of his comments about GCA? Any thoughts on how that could be done short of kidnapping TomF and tying him up and putting him in an investigation room with a one-way window?

[Jay Flemma]

My thought was a letter, signed by Ran and Ben, and then with all 1500 of our signatures on it too, asking for further clarification on minutiae such as these:

clarify whether he means no particular hazards such as cross-hazards like the "Great Hazards" Tillie used to construct, burns like Rae's Creek and Swilcan and center line bunkers.  What about the glacier bunker at 4 on BB?

Then we should ask if his definition includes "turning the bunker's axis" so that instead of being parallel to the line of the rough, its horizontal.  say the fairway bunker at 1 at red tail.  (i.e. brian silva's definition of perpendicular, where the hazard doesn't just sit in the rough, but is turned so that some portion of it must be skirted or carried).    

Mr. Fazio should be invited to explain his position, either in writing or in a public or internet forum, hear our positions and then engage in a public dialogue with us.

[Joe Hancock]

Why would Fazio choose to subject himself to that? I doubt that Ran and Ben mean one iota to TF. Nor do the rest of us 1498 "participants".

I would probably laugh at the utter pride in such a display, if I were him.

Joe

[Peter Pallotta]

TE
I'd say this: the way to start that conversation is NOT be treating Tom Fazio like a school-boy who can be bullied and mocked. He can't be, or, more accurately, he WON'T be.

I think you know where my feelings/emotions are regarding nature and the natural in golf course architecture; but I think we have to recognize -- as the "Crane gets Mad" thread seems to show -- that the roots of Fazio's approach stretch right back to the very beginnings of this kind of debate, almost to the start of golf course architecture in America.

So, if the Behr/Mackenzie-Crane debate had a winner and a loser, and if for a big chunk of time (starting, let's say, with the first changes to Augusta National) it looked like Behr/Mackenize were the losers, I'm thinking there are some pretty fundamental and underlying reasons for that.

I don't know what they are. Tom Fazio may not be able to articulate them either.  

But how else can we begin having a meaningful and fruitful discussion -- i.e. one that might lead to actual CHANGE, not just more rhetoric -- than by at least treating him/his work and the 'tradition' that he represents with the respect it deserves, deserves if for no other reason that its continued popularity.

Peter

Of course, if none of that makes sense, TE, I think you should just call him up. He'd talk to you

[Mike Sweeney]

Any thoughts on how that could be done short of kidnapping TomF and tying him up and putting him in an investigation room with a one-way window?

Tom,

Since you have friends there and a US Open coming, I would say it should be in reference to how Merion has "settled in" post his work at Merion and post US Amateur. The main criticisms that come out today on GCA towards Merion seem to be maintenance driven (fairway width and the intensity of the green speeds), and the possibility of changing/moving greens.

None of this has to do with Fazio's work/changes.

I guess I would like to know how much freedom he has on these jobs such as Merion, Winged Foot and Augusta. My guess is the cubs have him on a tight leash but would love to know if that is the case.

[Jay Flemma]

Exactly, Peter.  Well said.  The thrust of piece was not to mock or bully Mr. Fazio, but to respectfully ask for clarification and dialogue...a give and take where we would get equal time to shine th elight on why perpendicular hazards are great fr golf and golf strategy - at both the professional level and for amateurs.

Joe Hancock - maybe Mr. Fazio won't respond, but if ee claim to love great GCA as much as we do and if we are trying to be what guardians and caretakers we can, its up to us to at least present the opposite view and make our feeling s known.

Or are we just here to sit around and talk?

This is a chance for us to do something...something good for strategy.

[TEPaul]

"Dick, if you could make some points to Mr. Fazio about the merits of perpendicular hazards, what would they be?  Tom, how about you?"

Jay:

The merits of perpindicular hazards?

Hmm.

Would you be interested in my making some points about the merits of perpindicular hazards that stretch clear across whole holes?

If so approximately half the holes at Pine Valley have perpindicular hazards of one type or another that stretch clear across whole holes.

Would you like me to make some points about the merits of those perpindicular hazards at PV?

[Geoffrey Childs]

Jay

With all due respect, why would you want to pass on the responsibility for initiating a debate with Tom Fazio to Ran and Ben when you have your own BLOG and a perfectly respectable venue to promote your agenda?  In addition you could also pass on the idea to “your editors” so the debate/interview could take place on Golf Observer or wherever else your writings are disseminated. Involving 1500 GCA participants and Ran and Ben is IMHO not necessary or appropriate for a debate between you and Tom Fazio on the merits of his designs and design philosophies.  His book explains them all too clearly anyway.

[Joe Hancock]

Jay,

My smartass response is that by sitting around here and talking, we   are presenting the opposite view and making our feelings known.

I don't see where we, collectively, have any authority over golf course architecture, club administration, architect selection, architect philosophies and opinions, etc. The people with the land and the money are the ones who have the authority to chose as they please.

All we have is opinions. Some of us are lucky enough to put those "opinions" on the ground and let the rest of the golf world opine about whether those "opinions" work.

Joe

[paul cowley]

Richard.."I can understand the "Rodin" hole (great tyop, whether by Fazio or Jay, even though it's an old one), and I think I understand "martial"ing one's buddies (since we're into bitch-slap mode here), but what exactly is a "perpendicular" hazard?  I'm imagining a cenotaph or Martello tower in the middle of the fairway, but it still doesn't ring any GCA bell, at least for me."
.....now this is something I can speak to, because as far as I know I am the only GCA who has built a Martello tower as part of a golf hole. Its sits about four yds yds left of the green surface on the #1 hole at the Patriot GC, and it is definitely perpendicular, or vertical. I also provided a 5'8" portal so that a player could access the green without bumping his head [I'm 5' 7"] . Its clearly visible if one Googles Earth.


JoeH...thank you for stating that my posts are concise and easy to read. I write that way more for my benefit than for yours.



To TomP, Jay and others:

Most of you know that the ASGCA holds annual seminars and round table discussions that include outside speakers from related fields. Mr Fazio and others oft mentioned here are frequent participants. I have always thought that it would be very interesting if a small delegation from GCAtlas could be incorporated in some interesting format....headed by TomP and a few other notables...Doak might be a good one...and engage in design dialogue.

I would offer my services to help ensure a semblance of moderation...of course I would be dressed in a Great Kilt with at least five knives on most of my appendages, and also have a 4' Claymore broadsword strapped to my back to loudly thump down on the table if I needed keep order.

I think this proposal has merit....now lets see if it has legs.

[Adam Clayman]

Any thoughts on how that could be done short of kidnapping TomF and tying him up and putting him in an investigation room with a one-way window?

None of this has to do with Fazio's work/changes.

Mike, The crits I heard where about the playability of the clumpy bunker surrounds.

Does that speak to TF's work or the worker who implemented his plan?

The irony is of course Joe Valentine's legendary 'clumping" technique and why was it not perfected for the recent changes.

[TEPaul]

"The irony is of course Joe Valentine's legendary 'clumping" technique and why was it not perfected for the recent changes."

Wow. I thought I knew something about Merion and its history but after all these years I have yet to hear about Joe Valentine's legendary "clumping" technique. What is that? Or are you talking about that lacy grass eyebrow look that began to appear in the late '20s and early '30s

[Adam Clayman]

Sorry for the memory loss, It was chunking and Richie.

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt7-YnG0Mhw&feature=related

[TEPaul]

Adam:

Maybe you're thinking of the "chunking" method of green surround construction from Gil Hanse. I did not know that Richie Valentine was into that "chunking" method although Richie Valentine was certainly quite "chunky" himself.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()