News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
ISeriously, this TF bashing is BS.....and is there is anyone out there of enough stature to debate it?

Well, apparently not me!

Garland,

I suspect TF thinks they do better than the likes of me and Paul Cowley. I once had a contractor who had worked for me submit photos of one of my projects to the Fazio organization. When they called for a personal reference the surprised tone of voice was "wow, this looks good" as if they just didn't think anyone else was doing work nearly as good as theirs.  I have had similar experiences with the Jones, Palmer and Nicklaus organizations.  Once, I heard Rees admit that there were a lot of guys doing good work now, before correcting himself to add "nearly as good as ours!"

So, there is no doubt there is ego in the biz, and no doubt that the top guys have to jealously protect their brands.

BTW, I am not going to answer your other posts.  While I think they are unwarranted, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, I can see a kernel of truth in them, and I am still working on my New Year Resolution not to get my shorts in a wad over anything written on gca.com......In truth, no one design solution can solve all problems that are inherent - sometimes we just have to choose the lesser of two evils.  The easiest thing in the world is to see that one thing is favored over another.

Faz, BTW, doesn't necessarily promote ease of tee to green walking, but its in the name of visuals.  He staggers his tees left and right, and separates them with earth mounds and plantings, so that on most tees, you don't see the tee in front of you.  But, it does take up more space and I can only surmise that he does this thinking visuals are more important, given the percentage of players who actually do walk his courses.

You will be interested to know that the routing I am working on right now actually trys to line up the green with the middle tees and accepts longer walks to the back tees. I do agree with you that gca's tend to (seemingly often) make you go a long way to the next forward tee.  Again, I haven't figured out a way around it on two holes that run the same direction, unless we accept a potentially unsafe walkback the to back tee, but its an easy fix when the next hole runs back in the direction of the first or at 90 degrees.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

PaulC:

Good post!

I agree with you that those on here who just gratuitously trash Fazio are totally showing themselves to be uninformed lightweights in the over-all analysis and understanding of golf course architecture, its history and waypoints over its history and evolution. It really does seem to be a small-minded consensus-opinion mind-set.

Not to say that Fazio's perspective or career inventory is beyond question in various ways but to claim the man is without talent or architectural consequence (if he feels like exhibiting it) really is BS.

I think the time has come for those of us left on here who have something to say in this vein to begin to both clean up and attack the pettiness of opinion of those that sometimes seems to overtake and influence this website.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2009, 10:23:16 PM by TEPaul »

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Well, I'll tell you what I think. Tom Fazio thinking he can do better than the golden age architects is BS. Tom Fazio thinking he can do better than Paul Cowley would be BS. Tom Fazio thinking he can do better than Jeff Brauer would be BS.

IMHO the truly talented can see the talent in others and know they are best served by concentrating on doing a better and better job to try to get or stay ahead, and are least served by crowing about being better than others, golden age or not.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

TEPaul

Garland Bayley:

Isn't it interesting that as you even attempt to praise the likes of Paul Cowley and Jeff Brauer in comparison to Fazio they very much disagree with your opinion of Fazio?  ;)

TEPaul

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

Chiperino:

I should remind you that Pine Valley, at least, was considered by very many and very many knowledgeable and important in the world of golf course architecture to be arguably the best golf course and architecture in the world before it was even finished (and we know it still is today)!

THAT certainly did not take decades and Pine Valley has never held multiple majors---matter of fact it's not held a single one and most likely never will!


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Garland Bayley:

Isn't it interesting that as you even attempt to praise the likes of Paul Cowley and Jeff Brauer in comparison to Fazio they very much disagree with your opinion of Fazio?  ;)

I'm not sure they have stated anything about my expressed opinion of Fazio.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
PaulC:

Good post!

I agree with you that those on here who just gratuitously trash Fazio are totally showing themselves to be uninformed lightweights in the over-all analysis and understanding of golf course architecture, its history and waypoints over its history and evolution. It really does seem to be a small-minded consensus-opinion mind-set.


I think TF is very talented, but I guess I'm small minded in my attitude towards the way he has treated the classic courses. Guilty as charged. Tom, have you seen the results of his advisory work at Bel Air?

Not to say that Fazio's perspective or career inventory is beyond question in various ways but to claim the man is without talent or architectural consequence (if he feels like exhibiting it) really is BS.

I don't think his talent has ever been called into question, at least by me anyway. I think it's his attitude that leaves something to be desired.

I think the time has come for those of us left on here who have something to say in this vein to begin to both clean up and attack the pettiness of opinion of those that sometimes seems to overtake and influence this website.

Golf architecture is an artform, and as an artform it open to both praise and criticism. If this isn't the place to debate these things, then where?
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

TEPaul

"I'm not sure they have stated anything about my expressed opinion of Fazio."


Yes, I think I can see you're not sure they have stated anything about your expressed opinion of Fazio. Perhaps as with others on here you should simply claim you've been misunderstood. ;)

TEPaul

"I think TF is very talented, but I guess I'm small minded in my attitude towards the way he has treated the classic courses. Guilty as charged. Tom, have you seen the results of his advisory work at Bel Air?"


David:

Not really, but as I've stated on here for many years, it is my distinct opinion that Tom Fazio would do far better for himself and golf course architecture if he would stick to working on golf courses that are only his own!  ;)


"Golf architecture is an artform, and as an artform it open to both praise and criticism. If this isn't the place to debate these things, then where?"




Certainly it is but that doesn't mean to me that any of us should shy away in the slightest from praising profusely the opinions of others or criticizing, even severely, each other's opinions!


« Last Edit: January 25, 2009, 11:35:31 PM by TEPaul »

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
"I think TF is very talented, but I guess I'm small minded in my attitude towards the way he has treated the classic courses. Guilty as charged. Tom, have you seen the results of his advisory work at Bel Air?"


David:

Not really, but as I've stated on here for many years, it is my distinct opinion that Tom Fazio would do far better for himself and golf course architecture if he would stick to working on golf courses that are only his own!  ;)



I absolutely couldn't agree more. I have been guilty of lumping his renivation work with his original work, and that is not fair to him.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Chip:

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!


TE
Is that in the Piper and Oakley letters? Do you have a date for when Mackenzie stopped in to see them and where exactly were they based then? So many questions........


Matthew Rose

  • Karma: +0/-0
In terms of golf, I believe that the classic Golden Age courses were too macho centered for both women and seniors to enjoy.  Now, that is a very general statement, and the kind I have railed against - it obviously applies to Winged Foot and its man sized courses, but there were many other playable clubs.  Just not playable for those who hit it 135 yards. 

I grew up mostly playing old courses (in my town, the muni was from 1924 and the country club from 1894), both of which had only two sets of tees (white and red) until very recently. The red tee would often simply be a set of red markers plonked down about 10 yards in front of the white ones on the same piece of ground, which seems kind of pointless really.

My mother never complained, though she did tend to shoot better scores (and have more fun) years later when several forward tees were built on most of the longer holes, thus allowing for an occasional par on a par four.

What I found from this example is I never seemed to really form any kind of opinion on my mother's ability as a player.... she might shoot 120 on one course and 95 on another, simply because the second course was a newer course with four sets of tees. I guess it'd be like playing a 6500 yarder one day and an 8000 yarder the next.

I suppose designers now have to design for a lot more people.... I doubt Ross and McKenzie were specifically thinking of women and senior men specifically when building their tour de forces.

So what are forward tees for, exactly? Is the goal to simply provide a shorter course, or is it setup specifically to allow someone to hit greens in regulation from the right box? Or somewhere in between. Based on the setups I've seen from my (admittedly limited) repertoire of courses I've played, it seems to be different everywhere.



« Last Edit: January 26, 2009, 01:36:43 AM by Matt Rose »
American-Australian. Trackman Course Guy. Fatalistic sports fan. Drummer. Bass player. Father. Cat lover.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
I woke up this morning wondering about the difference between design philosophy and "dogma."  Is it philosophy when you agree and dogma when you don't? Or is it dogma when you never change, and philosophy when you slowly change your thoughts on design?

Matt,

As I related on Lyne Morrison's recent thread on fw tees, there is not enough thought nor any consistent "dogma/philosophy" among architects considering fw tees, explaining the wide variation your mother experienced, I suppose.  Anyway, my philosophy has changed recently and in favor of shorter courses from the front tees and longer ones from the back.  7000 yards works for almost no one as a back tee any more, but that is a discussion for another day.

As to the two most forward sets of tees, generally based on 140 and 180-200 yard tee shots, I believe that the most boring shot in golf is the middle shot on a par 5. I believe the toughest shot is a long iron/wood approach shot.  I know that at least 20% of the players out there hit their drives under 200 yards and play the forward two tees (or should). 

I can't justify taking this big a chunk of golfers and dooming them to play boring and difficult shots all day long in ADDITION to perhaps forcing them to play up to 14 extra shots for both their and the Owner's pace of play.  (hopefully the tees are such that they can reach the par 3 holes - yes some will argue that par doesn't matter, greens in regulation doesn't matter, but what average player doesn't relish the par 3, primarily for its chance to reach a green in one?)

I will grant what Garland says - in some cases, the walk to the short tee may consume some of the time savings if the routing doesn't consider their locations well.

If golf isn't growing, could this be the reason, and not 90's style design? That our courses are simply too long for those who play them and we as gca's didn't notice that as back tee yardages got longer, so did mid tee yardages?  I tend to believe so - I think golfers look at immediate concerns - like their enjoyment - before starting to look at the architecture.  BTW, placement of tees is as much architecture as placement of greens and hazards!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Peter Pallotta

I woke up this morning wondering about the difference between design philosophy and "dogma."  Is it philosophy when you agree and dogma when you don't? Or is it dogma when you never change, and philosophy when you slowly change your thoughts on design?

Jeff - neat question. The first thing that occured to me is the line from a Woody Allen picture, one of his earlier, funny ones:

“A relationship, I think, is like a shark, you know? It has to constantly move forward or it dies. And I think what we got on our hands is a dead shark.”

Which is to say, a philosophy is fluid and alive and life-giving, while a dogma is fixed and dead and deadening.

Maybe.

Or, a philosophy is responsive, providing a framework out of which to engage anew with the world; while a dogma is a set-piece, an unchanging answer to everything that it meets

Even more maybe.

Of course, the parallels to golf course architecture are obvious...

Peter

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Peter,

Yes, the older WA movies tended to be a lot funnier. I have stopped watching his new ones......I think of gca.com in terms of the "dead shark" or at least "jumping the shark" often!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

"TE
Is that in the Piper and Oakley letters? Do you have a date for when Mackenzie stopped in to see them and where exactly were they based then? So many questions........"

Neil:

Yes it is. I'll find you the date no later than the end of this week. Where was who based---Piper and Oakley or Mackenzie?

If you mean Mackenzie, Piper or Oakley told Hugh or Alan Wilson that Mackenzie could be reached by writing him c/o Robert Hunter, Del Monte, California.

By the way, Alan Wilson was quite the traveler and he did a good bit of sniffing around the West Coast looking at golf courses and their grasses out there.


tlavin

You gotta love the unerring way in which quotes from Fazio or discussion about Fazio brings out the passion in this crowd.  If I were to summarize my golf architecture predilictions in pithy fashion, I'd say that I favor the classic course architecture of Flynn, Raynor and Ross over the modern work of Fazio, Nicklaus and Dye.  At the same time, I obviously ardently admire the modern work of Doak, Coore/Crenshaw and others who are hewing to the minimalist/naturalist style of architecture.

In some ways, the "old" guys were lucky because they had the first shot at the best land in the best locations.  Pebble, Pine Valley, Seminole and dozens of other courses are undeniably aided by the superior land forms that the architect had to deal with.  Doak and Crenshaw were unbelievably lucky to get jobs like Sand Hills, Ballyneal and Pacific Dunes, among others, given the felicitous nature of the land, even though their location would only appear optimal to the most gifted business visionaries.

In some easily discernible ways, the modern architects are at an advantage because of the capabilities of modern equipment and modern irrigation and drainage technologies.  They have been (until recently) lucky because of the availability of ready capital.

In some ways, even the most defensive among us has to admit that "we" tend to be more forgiving of the golden age architects.  Simple case in point: Raynor draws fevered praise by many (me included) despite the transparent reliance on template design while Fazio gets skewered and ridiculed for repetitive, bland design.

Maybe the earlier architects had freer rein than the newer architects.  Maybe the "business model" mania of the recent decades has led to a homogenization and a dumbing down of some of the genius that many architects are capable of. 

In the "final" analysis, I find a lot of the modern courses exciting.  I find many more to be uninspired and cookie-cutter like.  Fazio has a huge resume of golf courses and he surely has a handful that are excellent.  Among these I would include Shadow Creek, Forest Creek and the re-do of Butler National.  The photos of Mardis Camp are very promising, indeed.  If some of his other work is less than thrilling (insert list), I'm willing to accept that and still admire his work, even though I admire Doak's and Crenshaw's work much more.

So, I tend to disagree with Tom Fazio on this point, but I greatly appreciate the dialogue that it has prompted.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Personally, I think Tom Fazio's trouble with certain critics is that he doesn't talk enough about GOLF or how his golf holes ought to be PLAYED.  That's a major faux pas, as far as the most passionate students of architecture are concerned.

I have no idea how much he really THINKS about how people will play his golf holes; I only spent the better part of a day with him twenty years ago, and unfortunately it was in his office and not on site.  (I actually spent more of the day with Dennis Wise and Jan Beljan and a young associate named Mike Strantz.)

But it's funny to hear him compared to Seth Raynor, because Raynor was all about those certain holes in his palette, and Fazio doesn't talk about his holes much at all.  And, for that matter, I don't think anybody on this thread so far has even mentioned a particular golf hole of Fazio's that they like OR dislike.


Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
"TE
Is that in the Piper and Oakley letters? Do you have a date for when Mackenzie stopped in to see them and where exactly were they based then? So many questions........"

Neil:

Yes it is. I'll find you the date no later than the end of this week. Where was who based---Piper and Oakley or Mackenzie?

If you mean Mackenzie, Piper or Oakley told Hugh or Alan Wilson that Mackenzie could be reached by writing him c/o Robert Hunter, Del Monte, California.

By the way, Alan Wilson was quite the traveler and he did a good bit of sniffing around the West Coast looking at golf courses and their grasses out there.



Thanks TE, great if you could let me know the date of the letter and the text that refers to Mackenzie. What I wanted to know was where Mackenzie met up with Piper and Oakley. Thanks
Neil

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
  And, for that matter, I don't think anybody on this thread so far has even mentioned a particular golf hole of Fazio's that they like OR dislike.


For as much as I dislike many of the ideals of his school of design, I alway find myself enjoying alot of his courses. I may be biased in saying this, but I LOVE his work at Forest Creek...esp. the north course which is a natual looking sandhills course that I am surprised doesn't get more talk here.

My least favorite course of his is Conway Farms outside of Chicago. That course just stinks to me. More than other GCA's...I think you can tell when T. Fazio is just cashing a paycheck.
H.P.S.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Folks, at the end of the day, what do you expect Fazio to say?  His courses suck?  At least he has the balls to say something.  So many archies are afraid of their own shadow - presumably in case they burn any future bridges with any comment remotely controversial.  Heavy sigh.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Ludlow, Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Folks, at the end of the day, what do you expect Fazio to say?  His courses suck?  At least he has the balls to say something.  So many archies are afraid of their own shadow - presumably in case they burn any future bridges with any comment remotely controversial.  Heavy sigh.

Ciao


Agreed. I also think some arch's ego's are too big to acknowledge that some who came before them built courses better than they themselves could build. The thought of these arch's from previous generations building better courses without the latest and greatest in technologies! ;)
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Folks, at the end of the day, what do you expect Fazio to say?  His courses suck?  At least he has the balls to say something.  So many archies are afraid of their own shadow - presumably in case they burn any future bridges with any comment remotely controversial.  Heavy sigh.

Ciao

Sean,
There is a fair bit of gray area between suck and better than the previous best, no?
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Folks, at the end of the day, what do you expect Fazio to say?  His courses suck?  At least he has the balls to say something.  So many archies are afraid of their own shadow - presumably in case they burn any future bridges with any comment remotely controversial.  Heavy sigh.

Ciao

Sean,
There is a fair bit of gray area between suck and better than the previous best, no?

AG

The man expressed his opinion and a lot of people agree with him - including I suspect more archies than care to admit it.  This is an easy one to walk away from - no?

Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Ludlow, Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Pete Lavallee

  • Karma: +0/-0

 This is an easy one to walk away from - no?

Ciao

No, it isn't. His outright contempt for the work done in the GA allows him to redesign those golf courses without the slightest care. People who care about preserving the great works from the past, like Crenshaw or Doak, would have walked away from those jobs. Seriously, did Riviera and Augusta need the work he's pefrormed?
"...one inoculated with the virus must swing a golf-club or perish."  Robert Hunter