Tom Fazio says the courses built in the 1990's are better than the Golden Age

[ChipOat]

In the current issue of Golf World (1/26), there is a quote by "Tom Fazio, noted golf course designer, on the tendency among golf architecture critics to rank old courses as better than new ones."  TF says, .........."I happen to think the '90s were the best decade.  Others say the '20s."

Is this a belief caused by what Pat Mucci would call BIAS for all the obvious reasons?  Is there something to it?  Like the 1920's (plus CBM's best work in the 'teens), there was lots of money around in the 1990's to build a bunch of really fine new courses.  And Pete Dye's early work was there to inspire.

Or does it just take decades and, for a few, multiple majors for a course to become consensus "great"?

[Tom_Doak]

Chip:

I think this was covered a couple of weeks back.

But, since you brought it up again, there's an easy way to answer your question ... which courses does Mr. Fazio cite in favor of his case that the 90's were best?

[ChipOat]

Tom,

I haven't been on GCA for awhile, I'm afraid.  Also, the publication is Golf World; omitted that in my original post.

TF cites no courses although, to be fair, it is a short "sound byte" quote and not part of a longer story (which may have appeared elsewhere?).

Either way, can you express an opinion without sounding impolitely ego-centric about the inclusion of your own excellent work as a major variable in the equation for the 1990's?

[John Moore II]

This is an interesting statement from him. I know TF is talking about the design field as a whole, but in reality, I think it MAY be possible to argue the point from the public access side. I mean, you consider Bandon, Kiawah, Whistling Straits, Kohler, and some others and it would seem that those could compare favorably to the top notch public courses opened in the 20's.

And lets think about top to bottom, all courses. Certainly the top end coruses are the ones we think of, but lets go down into the second and third tier courses. How do those compare from the given time periods?

I mean, let me do a quick compare of two average, mid-level public courses near Wilmington, NC. First, Wilmington Golf Course, profiled here on the site, built 1926, and Castle Bay Golf Links up the road in Hampstead, built in 1999. Without getting into great detail, both have very good routings, good strategic features added in, etc. Both are good golf courses, but I would personally give Castle Bay the edge.

Now, my opinion means very little, but I think looking at the courses away from the top is a good thing to do. I don't know if that is what Fazio had in mind when he said what he did, but to me, in order to say what decade was the best, you have to look top to bottom, not just at the very top. 

Another part of the quote from Fazio that is missing here, but was in Golf World, was that he said he thinks there should be top 100 lists from each decade. I can kind of buy this given the difference in courses today compared to courses from years back if only in things like permitting issues and what can and can't be done legally.

[Phil_the_Author]

For those who have never conducted an in-depth interview and then had to fit it inot a space defined by number of words, many times proper understandings of what was said is left out because portions of the entire conversation aren't included.

That said, the one part of the interview that I have a hard time understanding is where this was written:

"The top 10 courses in Golf Digest's most recent ranking of the top 100 U.S. courses were built before 1935. Can this be an accurate reflection of the truly "great" courses? No, says Tom Fazio, probably golf's most successful architect in the past 30 years. "That is fact," Fazio, 63, said the other day of modern rankings, "not that they are the best, but that that's the way people automatically think..."

Maybe memory really is the first to go for he seems to have forgotten Shadow Creek which quite controversally DEBUTED in Golf Digest to a number 8 ranking.

The architect who designed Shadow Creek... Tom Fazio...

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

Perhaps Mr. Fazio thinks Shadow Creek should still be in the top ten.

Chip:

I think the bottom line is that EVERY decade has been overrated in its own time.

[David Stamm]

This is nothing new from TF and he's never made it a secret about how he feels about the older classic courses. I don't know why some try to find some way of bailing him out of his comments. He feels what he feels and I don't hold it against him for being wrong and biased.


IMHO, I think Fazio is one of the main reasons why the game of golf has become ever more expensive. I'm not sure if "economy of design" can ever be applied to him and I think courses, both public and private, in these economic times will find it increasingly difficult to maintain the courses the way he designed them to be maintained. In addition, his work on classic courses in preparation for major championships has left courses disjointed to some degree, ie Inverness and his redesign on courses such as Bel Air is a travesty. But that's just me.

[TEPaul]

Chip:

What you quoted above from Fazio in Golf World is essentially the same thing he said about ten years ago in Philadelphia at what was called the GAP Restoration Forum. It sounded to me like he meant the architecture in the 1990s is generally better than it was in the 1920s (or the Golden Age), but I certainly admit it is sometimes sort of hard to tell what Tom Fazio means when he speaks. I also remember him saying if the ODGs lived in the 1990s they would probably be doing what the 1990s guys were doing. I suppose his implication was the ODGs were limited with the tools of the trade back then compared to the 1990s and I guess that would be pretty hard to deny.

As to how a particular time looks at what is going on in their own time, I've just been reading the correspondence of the creation of the USGA Green Section (which was considering getting into golf architecture analysis and recommendations but ultimately decided not to) and it's pretty clear to see that by around the mid 1920s some certainly didn't think there was all that much good architecture out there at that time.

[TEPaul]

Chip:

Here's an interesting example of some of the things that were said by some back in the 1920s. When the USGA Green Section was in formation they produced The Bulletin (essentially intended to be collected agronomic research material). One idea was to put critical material in the periodical about architecture by asking all architects of that time to wax on about their thoughts on architecture and its history or future.

Mackenzie stopped in at the US Dept of Agriculture to see Piper and Oakley (two of the US Dept of Agriculture guys who were doing the research). He told them that he had invented the idea of making contoured putting greens on flat land! Piper and Oakley wrote Alan Wilson (the early chairman of the USGA Green Committee) of Merion and Pine Valley mentioning that Travis had also stopped in to see them and said the same thing about himself. Alan Wilson wrote back saying it was probably a bit foolish for any single architect to make a claim like that! 

In the early 1920s Alan Wilson allowed as, in his opinion, there were probably only about three architects in America who were really good. Unfortunately he neglected to mention who he thought they were. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

There are a lot of ways courses from the 1990's until now could be considered better. 

Fazio is right that the older courses (at the top end anyway) always have the advantage of "history" on their side.......

Remember, the early guys in America were really just guessing at what might work in these climates. 
Most courses are technically better from the start...... and probably more safe, too.

Golden Age courses have nearly ALL been remodeled to remove questionable and bad features.  Its not just the good ones that gca's of the 1950's on worked on - those are just the ones you lament.

Golden Age courses had stuff added for years to get where they are now........Courses today, with bunkers and fw dogleges at "more correct" places, in many cases actually play better than old courses.......

But, if you compare the typical Tom Fazio creation - which is a members club - with less famous members clubs of the 1920's, rather than the top 2 or 3, like Winged Foot - I think they are head and shoulders above the less famous club courses of the GA.

Then, as hinted above, go compare an average new public course with one from that age.  The mid level courses are way better (Brauer vs. Bendelow? - no contest!).........

Iin fact, it stands to reason that most of us SHOULD be better, having had the experience of all of those who came before to draw on.
 
Now, with all of that said, the top courses of any era all stand up well.  A classic is a classic.  But, I doubt anyone can deny that the Winged Foots, Pebble Beach, etc. that rank in the top 10 of the GA aren't more highly thought of because of their tournament history, because we all love to play places we have seen on TV.

So, Fazio isn't totally wrong on this, even if there is some clear markeing reasons to say what he says.

[TEPaul]

My Dear Mr. Jeffrey Brauer, Sir:

How are you today, my good man? Is the family as fit and fiddle as can be expected?

That's a pretty good post of yours just above, in my opinion, particularly in a general comparative way regarding the 1920s and the 1990s architecturally.

However, there may be a sort of sub rosa philosophy or theory at work here as architecture developed and evolved from the 1920s on, at least in the minds of some of the most interesting thinkers and practitioners from the 1920s.

And that is that it may not be a good thing for golf and particularly golf architecture to move too far towards various standardizations and architectural formulae, if you get my drift. Sure, to do that one can certainly make a good case that to go in that direction with golf and architecture it might address the actual games of golfers in some better or more complete way, but on the other hand that really does begin to get away from some of the unpredictable and random aspects of Nature itself which some felt (probably those few interesting and adventurous spirits from the 1920s such as Mackenzie, Thomas, Behr, Hunter et al) must be maintained in golf and architecture! 

I believe within the next year at least, a new term (concept) will be introduced on here (and hopefully generally) that will much more completely incorporate and make clear what is meant in that last sentence in the last paragraph. That term is "Equitableness" (or lack of it) in golf and architecture generally.

I think (or hope) that it will make it clearer that the type of equitableness we can rightly ask for and expect in most all other sports and games (and which really does belong in most all other sports and games) just does not belong in golf and golf architecture to anywhere near the same degree.

[A.G._Crockett]

Two thoughts:

1. What does "better" mean?

2. To whatever extent courses built in the 90's and since are "better" than the Golden Age courses, those courses are NOT Fazio designs courses that I've seen.  That isn't even meant as a knock on his courses; they are what they are.  But "classics" they ain't.

The quote is self-justification, nothing more.

[Jeff_Brauer]

My good Mr. Paul,

I understand your point, EVEN if the GA plans I see actually also put bunkers in relationship to a dogleg point most of the time - its just that this DL point was 200, then 225, then 250 yards off the tee.

But you raise another great point - better for whom?  Certainly, as the current forward tee thread illustrates, courses now are much better from the get go from a woman's or seniors perspective, given that in those days, there were only 2 tees and any forward tee seemed to have been created as an afterthought and a nuisance.

Is it possible that Golden Age courses were designed even more for the 2% of golfers that were good players than courses today are?  Granted, their wall to wall turf was easier for average players, but in most other respects, like length, perhaps not?

I apologize in advance for the hijack of this thread, should that occur.

[TEPaul]

"But you raise another great point - better for whom?  Certainly, as the current forward tee thread illustrates, courses now are much better from the get go from a woman's or seniors perspective, given that in those days, there were only 2 tees and any forward tee seemed to have been created as an afterthought and a nuisance.

Is it possible that Golden Age courses were designed even more for the 2% of golfers that were good players than courses today are?  Granted, their wall to wall turf was easier for average players, but in most other respects, like length, perhaps not?"



Mr. Brauer:

I didn't actually raise the point "better for whom?" but in the vein of this thread that asks to compare architecture of the 1920s to the 1990s (or of Fazio's remark doing that) perhaps I should have.

As A.G. Crockett just asked---what does "better" even mean and what point or purpose does it serve? Is "easier" to be considered "better?"   

Personally, I think "better" is a whole lot more involved in golf and architecture than just that (easier)---even considering the question of what in the hell does "easier" itself even mean?  (would it mean less strokes used, or less distance the ball needs to travel or less or no obstacles in the way?).

In my opinion, what is better in the context of architecture is architecture that makes anyone THINK more rather than less! Is a course or architecture that makes anyone THINK more to be considered easier?

Somehow I would rather doubt anyone would say or even think that! Therefore, I'm afraid I'd have to say that much of what really good golf and golf architecture is all about is probably massively counterintuitive to most, at least on some levels!  

[A.G._Crockett]

In my opinion, what is better in the context of architecture is architecture that makes anyone THINK more rather than less!

Whatever it is that Mr. Fazio thinks "better" means, I see NO evidence on his courses that I've played that it means making the golfer think more.  Quite the opposite seems to be true.

In fact, if I had to limit my guess about what TF might mean by better, I'd have to say that he means better looking, as in eye-candy.

[Garland Bayley]

...
In fact, if I had to limit my guess about what TF might mean by better, I'd have to say that he means better looking, as in eye-candy.

I have purchased and read Mr. Fazio's and Mr. Nicklaus's golf course design books. My impression is that their emphasis from reading their own words is on attractive looks. If you translate Mr. Fazio's words into the courses built in the 1990s are more visually attractive and "better framed" than those built in the Golden Age, then it is possible to agree with him.

Contrast their books with Mr. Doak's and Mr. Shackelford's and you see why many here think TF is barking up the wrong tree.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good thread.  I find it hard to believe that, in general and across the board, the craft of golf course architecture hasn't improved in seven decades. I also find it hard to believe that the best of the modern age courses don't hold their own against the best from the golden age.  Which seems to leave, then, only a difference in the art of golf course architecture by which to value/prefer one era over the other.  Personally though, if by art we mean only aesthetics, then I think it's a discussion not worth having; it would simply be a debate about taste, and changing tastes. But that's the crux of it, it seems to me, i.e. the art of golf course architecture is about much more than merely aethetics -- it embodies and expresses the intentions and the ethos of the golf course architect in particular, and the spirit of the game in general.  Which is to say,  I'd guess that if we agree with Tom Fazio, it's because we think that the game's spirit -- and the intentions and ethos that lie behind it -- are in good hands, and indeed in better hands than they've ever been before. If we disagree with him, it's probably because we think that something of the game's true spirit has been lost over the decades, and that the intentions of most architects today aren't helping to bring that spirit back.

Peter     

[BCrosby]

I've never understood statements like the following from Jeff above:

"Golden Age courses have nearly ALL been remodeled to remove questionable and bad features.  Its not just the good ones that gca's of the 1950's on worked on - those are just the ones you lament.

Golden Age courses had stuff added for years to get where they are now.."

There seems to be a presumption at work in the above that all changes are for the better. Along the lines of Social Darwinism. If it exists today, it must be better than what doesn't exist today. Or something.

That's an odd presumption. First, it's fact free. Given what we know about older courses, I see no reason to believe that all changes, because someone thought they were a good idea at one time, were actually good ideas. Some were, but lots weren't.

Second, as a matter of principle I would think that a little architectural deference is owed. Most all of the good architects of the GA wrote about what they were trying to do, they debated back and forth about it, and their courses embodied their ideas. Their courses are an irreplaceable part of that historical record.

That doesn't mean all GA courses should be encased in amber. But they ought to get the benefit of the doubt.  I would have thought that the reputations of the best of the ODG's would at least give a modern architect pause before he fires up his bulldozer.

Bob

[David Stamm]

There are a lot of ways courses from the 1990's until now could be considered better. 

Can you cite some examples of how, Jeff?

Fazio is right that the older courses (at the top end anyway) always have the advantage of "history" on their side.......


I'll buy this up to a certain point. Most players have a casual knowledge of the history of the game. Alot don't know who Hagen, Armour or Sarazen are yet alone MacKenzie, Thomas or Tillinghast. History works both ways. I wonder in the annals of the game if Torrey will be remembered more affectionatley after what happened last year. Perhaps, perhaps not.





Golden Age courses have nearly ALL been remodeled to remove questionable and bad features.  Its not just the good ones that gca's of the 1950's on worked on - those are just the ones you lament.


Most? Can you give examples of how questionable and bad features have been removed?

Golden Age courses had stuff added for years to get where they are now........Courses today, with bunkers and fw dogleges at "more correct" places, in many cases actually play better than old courses.......

But, if you compare the typical Tom Fazio creation - which is a members club - with less famous members clubs of the 1920's, rather than the top 2 or 3, like Winged Foot - I think they are head and shoulders above the less famous club courses of the GA.

Does anyone think that Pelican Hill, Galloway National or Quail Hollow are heads and shoulders above places like Baltimore Five Farms, Valley Club of Montecito or Myopia Hunt?

Then, as hinted above, go compare an average new public course with one from that age.  The mid level courses are way better (Brauer vs. Bendelow? - no contest!).........

That's an unfair comparison as so much of those courses have been changed. It can't work both ways, you can't say that the old courses are better because they have been changed and then say moderns are better when the old courses have had so much changed.

Iin fact, it stands to reason that most of us SHOULD be better, having had the experience of all of those who came before to draw on.

The Golden Age architects certainly thought that that would be the case, but it hasn't exactly turned out that way.
 
Now, with all of that said, the top courses of any era all stand up well.  A classic is a classic.  But, I doubt anyone can deny that the Winged Foots, Pebble Beach, etc. that rank in the top 10 of the GA aren't more highly thought of because of their tournament history, because we all love to play places we have seen on TV.

Agreed.

[TEPaul]

A. G. Crockett:

What Tom Fazio means by "better" is something he has very much gotten into and explained (or tried to) through the years. Broadly, he says that better means something that makes more golfers feel happier or feel they have truly enjoyed themselves et al. It is essentially a "contentment" factor or barometer applied to golf and architecture-----generally greater contentment translates into better or best in architecture.

Fazio is by no means unique in saying and proposing that very thing (those very same thoughts and remarks) as most all architects throughout the history of golf have said the very same thing!

However, THAT too begs a massive question and I think that could be framed rather simply in the age old question ---- WHO leads and WHO follows?

In my opinion, this dynamic about who leads and who follows is something that can be applied to almost anything and golf and architecture is no different.

Fazio has said a number of tims, including in print, that he knows what golfers DON'T LIKE and therefore he does not give them things they don't like!

That sounds pretty logical and reasonable, doesn't it? However, I very much doubt even Tom Fazio really knows what all golfers DON'T LIKE! I doubt anyone does and therefore they should never make such assumptions and presumptions, at least in as general a context as Tom Fazio has (including in print). It would probably be more appropriate for Fazio to say he would prefer to give golfers things that never annoy them or piss them off or even make them really think because he doesn't want to be the brunt of golfers' annoyance or criticism, not even a little bit!

Perhaps we need to consider that it may be true to say (at least to a fair degree) that many golfers never will know what real enjoyment is in golf and architecture unless and until then can really understand what annoys them too-----and just as importantly, WHY. 

This gets into the whole subject and philosophy of "controversy" or the "controversial" in architecture which some architects actually felt and wrote was the ultimate ideal in golf and architecture. Clearly that has to mean some combination of annoyance or even confusion along with enjoyment or satisfaction with golf and architecture. In other words, where some were or are looking to produce a total "contentment factor" in architecture with no real annoyance or confusion included, others were looking to create and produce a pretty interesting "controversy factor" that very much included, even needed, some degree of confusion or annoyance on the part of the golfer!

It may not be much other than the old adage---it takes the rainy day to make the sunny day even better and more enjoyable in the end! Is that true? I can't really see how it couldn't be. It sure is for me.

I think those few architecture who really embraced the concept and philosophy of dedicated "controversy" in architecture are the great ones----the LEADERS, if you will. They were not the ones intimidated by the idea of pissing someone off with their courses and architecture. Clearly Crump was that way----he actually reveled in it. Did he look at it as part of this massive dynamic I'm trying to articulate here? Probably not but what does it matter because he did it anyway?

The idea is golfers themselves probably shouldn't be viewed as the leaders in what-all golf architecture offers to them or doesn't offer them. To be optimistic about it and about them it should probably be that way because they may not really know what they want unless and until the entire spectrum of what-all golf and architecture can be has been shown to them for their longterm analysis and opinion.

"Golf and Golf Architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone" (The Big World Theory), but in my personal opinion it is the golf architects who need to be the LEADERS and not the FOLLOWERS of their consituencies (the golfers)! And further the ones who were and are the real leaders somehow understood the importance of controversy (even including confusion and the occasional annoyance from golfers)

If all of that is true, the next step is to analyze very, very carefully what it exactly is it that confuses and annoys golfers about architecture, even if momentarily, and as importantly WHY, but yet ends up somehow being ultimately enjoyable, perhaps even more enjoyable, and even famous and enduringly respected!

[PCCraig]

I would agree that from a technical / infrastructure standpoint newer golf courses are "better." However one thing that many of these older courses of the 1920's have going for them are better pieces of land. The best example of 1990's infrastructure and construction combined with good GCA may be Shadow Creek. The key ingrediant is the GCA...which isn't always evident in Tom F.'s designs.

I find it interesting that some GCAers are looking for a deeper meaning in his comment, when all I see in it is another case of selfless promotion. Honestly, he may be a great guy in person, but he will do ANYTHING to promote and sell his brand of golf courses. So it makes it pretty hard to take anything he says seriously.

[Garland Bayley]

...
But you raise another great point - better for whom?  Certainly, as the current forward tee thread illustrates, courses now are much better from the get go from a woman's or seniors perspective, given that in those days, there were only 2 tees and any forward tee seemed to have been created as an afterthought and a nuisance.
...

Oh, I am so looking forward to the time when I age to the point of needing to play the senior tees. I will have the opportunity to walk that extra distance while not playing golf. In fact, it must be so much fun that my older golfing friends have taken up mall walking as a suitable and equally fun alternative.

IMHO, the modern placement of five sets of tees on golf courses is an abomination. I blame the USGA for part of this problem for not keeping the ball and other equipment under control. I blame the golf cart for making it easy for GAs to decide to put in extra tees.

If you want to keep the game interesting for women and seniors, sprinkle the hazards around more randomly, use the natural terrain to make obstacles to deal with, don't follow formulaic bunkers at the corners of doglegs at the current golfing age golden number, make golf courses that change directions without having parallel fairways running back and forth, and so on.

And don't ever implicate that you are better than other architects unless you want to be considered just another Tom Fazio.

[Matt_Ward]

The operative word in all these discussions is quite simple ...

perspective

TF and those who share his beliefs cannot possibly take the self-interest argument that what is here today is automatically ahead of all other courses from years and years ago.

Tom Doak is right -- too often the quick snapshot thoughts on courses tend to flatten out over the course of time and once the initial buzz / hoopla has faded.

Clearly, TF has had some significant successes but far too often the drive to create more and more courses has often meant a repetitive exericse in which the template is followed to excess and little real depth is provided. No doubt there are exceptions but often times I find most architects tend to promote a vision that is often tied to their own self interest than the more broader general one.

[TEPaul]

"There seems to be a presumption work that all changes are for the better. Along the lines of Social Darwinism. If it exists today, it must be better than what doesn't exist today. Or something.

That's an odd presumption. First, it's fact free. Given what we know about older courses, I see no reason to assume that all changes, because someone thought they were a good idea at one time, were actually good ideas. Some were, but lots weren't.

Second, as a matter of principle I would think that a little architectural deference is owed. Most all of the good architects of the GA wrote about what they were trying to do, they debated back and forth about it, and their courses embodied their ideas. Their courses are an irreplaceable part of that historical record.

That doesn't mean all GA courses should be encased in amber. But they ought to get at least the benefit of the doubt.  I would have thought that the reputations of the best of the ODG's would at least give a modern architect pause before he fires up his bulldozer."



BobC:

When one says something like that, it does sort of make the general presumption that the opinions of golfers about architecture generally remains the same or remains static over time.

Again, it should probably be looked at in the context of this remark of yours----"I see no reason to assume that all changes, because someone thought they were a good idea at one time, were actually good ideas. Some were, but lots weren't."

This is probably why things were changed with much architecture in the preceding decades (most thought it was a good idea then) as well as why things are now being changed back to what it once was (the whole renaissance in architecture known as "RESTORATION")------because today most think that is a good idea NOW!

I guess the truth of it all is that people's opinions on any single thing just change over time and they probably always will.

Or to put this in a more personal context, I have very little doubt that if my father was here today he would think about architecture very much as I do todayand if I was back in his era I would probably think very much as he did about it back then, while all the time recognizing the way we both look at it in our own separate and different eras is most definitely not the same!

[Garland Bayley]

If courses built in the 1990s are better, then why did they correspond to the beginning of the drop in the quantity of golfers?