Tom Fazio interview with Golf Digest

[George Pazin]

And George this is the problem. Tom Fazio does not own Winged Foot, Merion or Augusta like Mark Cuban owns the Dallas Mavericks. He does not work in a vacuum. He is a hired architect who gives advice and more importantly delivers the changes that are requested by Boards of those clubs.

In your own business, when a client delivers specs for an order, do you deliver what the client ask or what you think is right ?

A fair question. Generally speaking, I deliver what the client asks for - but I have on occasion told someone I could not or would not do his job.

But your comment seems to presuppose the idea that Fazio is merely a contractor of sorts; me, I'd guess his company is hired much more for its advisory role than its building role. And it's that very advice that is in question, not the motives behind it. I fully believe they think they are the best for the job and doing their best at the job; the results over the range of work at Oak Hill all the way up through the recent work at ANGC seems to warrant questioning of their judgment, at the very least.

Most importantly, I believe the questioning of that judgment, whether deserving or not, is neither bashing nor dog-piling, but the very essence of this site. It doesn't mean the critics are right, but it is, to me, the purpose of a discussion board.

Mike, you touch on the true heart of the matter... the purists feel Fazio, Jack et al are SELL OUTS versus artists.

Heck, I prefer to just call them businessmen. 

So that's the choice? Agree with Fazio and you're a businessman, disagree and you're a purist? That's silly.

 

[tlavin]

Lou Duran said, "Just like with walking and fast play, I hear a lot about strategy from GCA.com types but seldom see it in real life."

Truer words have seldom been posted hereabouts.  It seems to me that most of the strategy chatter comes about when a player misses his shot and is hoping that the architect has given him some strategy that will allow him to still play competitively on the hole, hence the incessant begging for wide fairways and the like.

If you want to bum-rap Fazio because his designs are repetitive in some fashion, prove it with words and photos.  And if it's because of the so-called template designs, then I hope the critic is not a devotee of Seth Raynor, as an earlier poster indicated, because he was the king of the long, short, eden, biarritz, redan, etc templates.  And if it's bunker design that is too similar, methinks that many a Golden Age architect was consistent in that matter as well.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Tom_Doak]

Lou:

Let me turn your question on its head:  can you cite a couple of Tom Fazio golf holes which you thought were really compelling strategically?

Anything like, say, the 12th hole at Ballyneal, where if you can drive it tight to the left side you get a good angle and look at a severe green, but if you leak the drive right, you're coming in blind from a tougher angle?  (I don't know Rustic Canyon well enough to cite it. )

For that matter have you ever heard Tom Fazio excited about a cool golf hole that he's built somewhere?

[Mike Hendren]

Tom,

Not to answer for Lou, but I'd go with the first hole at Golf Club of Tennessee.  Relatively short dogleg left with the approach from the extreme right side of the fairway looking right down the length of the green.  The green is at an akward angle for the big hitter who cuts the corner to achieve a shorter approach. 

I'd also add the 12th at Golf Club of Tennessee where a big fade from the tee can almost reach the green.  To miss right is to bogey - to miss left is to face a delicate downhill pitch for a reasonable approach at birdie.  Otherwise, the best option from the tee is a long iron that must flirt with a lengthy fairway bunker on the outside of the dogleg.

There is always the possibility that of the 324 Fazio holes that grace Golfweek's Top 100 Modern list there is not a single strategic hole among them.  Perhaps I'm just lucky to have two within a 30 minutes drive.

Mike

[Garland Bayley]

...
For that matter have you ever heard Tom Fazio excited about a cool golf hole that he's built somewhere?

Interesting question. The most excited I recall from him is about his design and construction of the extra holes a Pine Valley that incorporate the features of the existing holes.

[Mike_Young]

.....if our houses were golf courses most on this site would never go home...

That's so good I wish I'd said it.

Let me know when DD needs a caddie.

Bogey

promise will get you that caddy job
And now you have me thinking....I might go into minimalist housing architecture.....dirt floors, sod stacked wall, outdoor plumbing.....got to be 1500 guys somewhere in america that would buy these...don't you think???

[Anthony Gray]

Time for the periodical dog-pile on Fazio.  While I agree with some of the criticism, I'm compelled to ask:  Who among us has been as commercially successful in our respective professions?

Bogey

  1-800-asphault.



 

[tlavin]

Time for the periodical dog-pile on Fazio.  While I agree with some of the criticism, I'm compelled to ask:  Who among us has been as commercially successful in our respective professions?

Bogey

  1-800-asphault.



 

Beyond the misspelling, what do you mean?

[Mike Sweeney]

Lou:

Let me turn your question on its head:  can you cite a couple of Tom Fazio golf holes which you thought were really compelling strategically?

Pine Barrens #4



Galloway #18

[Garland Bayley]

Lou:

Let me turn your question on its head:  can you cite a couple of Tom Fazio golf holes which you thought were really compelling strategically?

Pine Barrens #4



Galloway #18

Are those strategic, or penal, or more likely heroic?

[Mike Sweeney]

Are those strategic, or penal, or more likely heroic?

2 handicap - strategic

20 handicap - penal

10 handicap - heroic

Look at the landing area in front of 18. You can go for it as a 2 and hit the green. As a 10 you can go for the bounce in from the left. As a 20, you should probably play it as a 3 shot hole as the tee shot is a dogleg right and you need to be in the right position.

[Mike_Young]

While I am all into strategy and incorporating it into designs..IMHO strategy is not relevant to 95 % of the golfers because if you don't have the ability to execute the shot necessary to carry out the planned or perceived strategy..then it don't matter

[tlavin]

While I am all into strategy and incorporating it into designs..IMHO strategy is not relevant to 95 % of the golfers because if you don't have the ability to execute the shot necessary to carry out the planned or perceived strategy..then it don't matter

So true!  Strategy typically comes into play after I've missed a shot.  Sure, I've hit shots in a strategic fashion and pulled it off, but it is more often the case that I blew a shot and had to hope that I could strategize my way out of it.

[Kalen Braley]

Terry and Mike,

I'm inclided to agree with you guys in principle...most of the time I'm just trying to get the ball anywhere on the fairway or green much less a certain part of it.

The only real risk/reward that comes into play for someone of my handicap is after I hit it in the trees. The question then becomes should I "Risk" trying to weave it thru a few tree branches and go for the green to get my "Reward"?  Or play it safe and just get the ball back out to the fairway?

[Lou_Duran]

David Stamm,

I've yet to play a golf course that doesn't require decisions which have consequences based on the choice taken and its execution.  Even the TPCs' various island holes which are often criticized for being penal and one-dimensional demand considerable thought and invite different tactics (sometimes I think that we confuse strategy with tactics, but that's another subject).  Even with these holes one has the option to hit the ball high or low, right to left or left to right, hard with less club or 3/4 with more, to the pin or the fat side of the green.  That most of us don't have the repertoire to execute these shots might be at the heart of the disagreement, and part of the reason why so many like the old and neo-classical courses which tend to be less taxing off the tee and more diverse on and around the greens.

Fazio's remodeling of classical courses quite apparently invites disdain among those who simultaneously hold what I think are mutually exclusive objectives, that these remain largely untouched, yet relevant for today's game at the highest amateur and professional levels.  Regardless of what the owners of these courses desire and willingly pay for, we disrespect not only their choices, but also attribute all sorts of negative motives and characteristics to them and their agents.

In regards to cost, golf is a big tent (see TEPaul), and Fazio fits only one narrow niche.  Cadillac tried to provide a stripped-down car for the aspiring masses and I don't think it did very well.  Might it be appropriate to suggest that BMW and all of its loyal customers pursue more economical products for the betterment of society and the industry in these difficult times?  Would Mike Young and Jeff Brauer prefer that Fazio drops his price to $250,0000 - $500,000 and start building low-maintenance courses in the under $5 Million category?  Let me suggest to you that the golf consumer today has more choices at all price points than in my 30 years in the game.  This may not be the case in CA and NY, but rather than pointing the finger at Fazio, perhaps consider that the governments its residents have chosen/condone the high taxes and extremely difficult and costly regulation which make development next to impossible and hyper-expensive.

Tom Doak,

One of the things I do like about Fazio courses is the variety and balance of his courses.  I haven't played Ballyneal, but I can cite a number of Fazio holes that provided multiple ways of playing them.  Pine Barrens has a few of them like the short par 5 in the front side, #4, which allows even a short to mid hitter to go for the green with an iron on the second shot by challenging the dangerous left side of the fairway.  The short par 4 #15 invites an aggressive straight drive as the crow flies which gets the ball on or close to the green or provides a bailout to the left with anything from a mid-iron on up with a much more difficult angle to a green sloping away (as I recall).

Dallas National has a couple of shortish 4s, e.g. # 7, which can be driven with a bold drive on the protected right side, or a safer, or a more conservative route with a lay-up shot to the left which leaves a difficult approach with a green that runs away from the fairway.  It has a very long par 4, #16, where my son had a wedge into it by challenging the right boundary while I had a 3-metal from the safe left center of the left to right dogleg.

BTW, other than the very high level of maintenance and service, Dallas National and Vaquero in the adjacent Tarrant County have very little in common, particularly in the green complexes.  Pine Barrens and Rolling Oaks provide another example of considerably different golf courses.

If I may ask a question, have you ever had a client tell you to design something that is totally different than anything you've ever done?  Subject to some ideas of what you believe constititues good golf course design, do you not follow the lead of your client?  I wonder how many of Fazio's clients complain that their course is too similar to another Fazio course, though he probably does have some potentially serious problems when one of his 200+ courses do not make the top 100 list.

[Tom_Doak]

Lou:  Like Mike, your examples of Fazio's strategic holes fall into the category of heroic holes to me.  I was looking for something a bit more simple, which a guy or gal could appreciate without making a 220-yard carry.

I am not sure I understood your last question, or at least how it relates to Tom Fazio's work.  I think that nearly every architect, before we take a job, will listen to our client's goals and decide if it's something we want to tackle.  And it's not so often that a client wants you to do something completely different than what you've been doing -- if that's what they want, you probably weren't on their list to begin with.

I do think that from what I've seen and heard, Tom Fazio has generally followed his clients' lead.  If they want him deeply engaged, as Steve Wynn did, or the owner at Victoria National, then he becomes deeply engaged.  If they just want another rubber-stamp Fazio golf course, that's what he gives them, and doesn't waste much of his time on those.  And if they wanted him to worry about the budget, he passed on the job.  I would not fault him on any of those things, but I guess we are just wired differently.

[Lou_Duran]

Mike S,

Thanks for the diagram of Pine Barrens #4.  I overcooked my tee shot but had a clear shot to the green from the fairway with a 6-iron (those pull hooks tend to roll out a bit further).  A short chip to a foot or so got my birdie.  A drive to the right would have made holding the second on the green very difficult (like on 14 where my second barely skipped over but left an impossible chip shot).

Mike Young,

That's what I've been trying to say for years regarding strategy.  Ironically, those who have the game and the repertoire of shots typically standardize or hit the same shots repeatedly.  Under the heat, going with old reliable seems to be the way to go.  I've seen Trevino and Litzke hit hooks, but even on hard right to left doglegs, they seem to hang the ball over trouble on the left and cut it back into the fairway.

[Eric Smith]

I've played a couple of Tom Fazio courses in the past few months - the above mentioned Pine Barrens and Victoria National.  Both are loaded with good golf holes and were very fun to play.  Throw in Rolling Oaks, No. 6, Callawassie, Belfair East and Cotton Dike and I'd have to say I haven't played a Fazio course that I didn't enjoy.  I liked the Digest interview and am glad to know a bit more about the man.

[Lou_Duran]

Tom Doak,

PB #4 allows three 5-irons by a shortish hitter from the right set of tees to reach the green.  I don't consider the drive over the sand particularly heroic because it is not all that long and one can generally hit the ball again even if it the barrens aren't carried.  I think that your definition of heroic as opposed to strategic may be dependent on the average player where mine is based more from the standpoint of the scratch golfer.

My question that was confusing to you is in reference to the criticism that Fazio's courses are mostly the same based on an alleged set of templetates and a lot of eye candy.  When a client hires Fazio, I suspect that they are hiring Fazio and not Doak or Bill Coore or Jack Nicklaus.

I've had discussions with several developers who've used Fazio and most of them tell the same story.  If anyone needed Fazio to be at the site, he would normally get there in short order.  His attention to the detail of the design was but one of the areas that he was involved in.  Reportedly, he was engaged in matters of construction, maintenance, and even business and marketing aspects of the project.  One developer told me that Fazio worked out of pocket for a long time until he was able to get all the financing in place.  Whereas I've heard of other big-name architects being hard to get a hold of, Fazio was totally accessible.  I attended the grassing ceremonies at Dallas National and was very impressed that though he is not a man who is naturally comfortable with people, he was there for hours in inclement weather and handled all sorts of inquiries with considerable patience, tact, and even humor. 

[George Pazin]

Lou:

Let me turn your question on its head:  can you cite a couple of Tom Fazio golf holes which you thought were really compelling strategically?

Pine Barrens #4



Galloway #18

These are actually pretty good examples of the distinct options vs. shades of gray question from the other day - I think I will repost them on that thread.

[Garland Bayley]

Lou:

Let me turn your question on its head:  can you cite a couple of Tom Fazio golf holes which you thought were really compelling strategically?

Pine Barrens #4



Galloway #18

These are actually pretty good examples of the distinct options vs. shades of gray question from the other day - I think I will repost them on that thread.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see the options. At world woods it looks like you are in the junk unless you can heroric carry to that fat part of the fairway. At galloway drive as far as possible right, then carry the junk.

[Sean_A]

While I am all into strategy and incorporating it into designs..IMHO strategy is not relevant to 95 % of the golfers because if you don't have the ability to execute the shot necessary to carry out the planned or perceived strategy..then it don't matter

Mike

I take a different view of strategy.  I think the best strategic holes are relevant for 95% of golfers because they have realistic and positive choices.  I say positive because so many people try to say that laying up short of a water cross hazard then going over it is a choice.  This is of course true, but it isn't very positive in that the water still needs to be carried so the choice is only when not if to carry it.

Ciao

[Greg Tallman]

Boy...I'm a whole lot more smarter now.   

Could the interviewer be any more fawning or ask less architecturally relevant questions?   I was on the edge of my seat reading about the Father/Son tournaments he plays in annually, or how he always watches the right side of golf holes.

If there wasn't already reason to bemoan the loss of real journalists.... 

I agree. Typical Fabio. But what do you expect from a guy that has his little template of golf holes and demands a fortune moving the ground into a mold he had in his head before he ever stepped foot on the ground. While this may be an exaggeration it is not far off.

While they certiany spent a small fortune here at Chileno Bay (reportedly $34 million) I do not believe there was a huge earth moving effort. The course flows naturally with the terrain and is far from you "cookie cutter" classification. You can see it on another thread "Name the architect" where some even call it Doakesque.

Greg -

Check out courses like Oak Creek and Shadow Creek. Both were completely contrived courses. Plus the holes at many of his courses are very similar.
 
Further, I have played a number of courses by both Doak and Fabio and no comparison between the two. Plus Doak's courses can actually be maintained at a reasonable price. Can't say that for Fabio.

Damon,

Why respond to a specific example with references to other places... I point to one that just might not be on the mold of the typical critiques offered up here  but I appreciate the head's up on the munfactured nature of Shadow Creek... I had no idea. 

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

Keep this in mind -- what TF has done for TX is quite remarkable but given the low bar for quality modern courses it didn't take really that much for him to get noticed through the fine additions he has added to the greater Dallas area alone.

Gents:

I'd be curious to know how many TF designs people have played because far too often the sampling size people use for their "definitive" conclusions can be a bit strained in terms of credibility?

I have to say that TF has designed a number of really outstanding layouts that I have had the opportunity to play. I have mentioned them a few times on this site. To broad brush TF and say he does the same thing over and over again for his well-heeled clients really pushes the stereotype envelope to the max. No doubt there are plenty of courses that I have played with his name associated to them that provide the same tired and predictable "great looking" but "golf-lite" in terms of strategic qualities.

TF pumps out golf courses because his client base likes what he produces. From a straight architectural perspective I'd say from the ones I have played I would venture no more than 20% of the designs I have played (75+) would be rated by me as exceptional. From within that category there would be a lesser number that I would rate as truly inspiring. No doubt when I size up his collective base of courses the batting average for the really stellar layouts is not as high as you would see with a C&C, Doak, Hanse, et al of this type -- who often have far less design projects (for any number of reasons -- some of them related to quality control) going on at any moment.

For the un-aided eye the bulk of TF's work is really providing the visual dynamics that the basic golfer can take in when playing. Clearly, TF understands golf and when he has taken the time to really be hands-on there are finished projects from the ones I have played that really do have eye-candy appeal but go far deeper in terms of strategic dynamics that far too many TF critics believe is ALWAYS lacking in anything he designs.

Again, I go back to sample size because it's possible someone might have played ten TF courses and from that sample size the same general feeling may be present.

At the end of the day -- TF is a talented man but in many ways his involvement in revising classic courses has struck a deep nerve on this site and elsewhere. In my mind, some of that has spilled over to how people feel about his overall design contributions.

[David Kelly]

To the Fazio-Must-Be-Doing-Something-Right-Because-He-Is-Rich-and-Popular crowd.  Lord knows that Fazio is not criticized anywhere else in the wide world of golf.  Can't people on a website that says it is "presented to promote frank commentary on golf course architecture" be allowed to criticize his work as much as they want without constantly having to acknowledge what a great guy he is, how popular his courses are and how he satisfies his clients or, alternatively, be as "commercially successful in our respective profession" as him?