I'M SO SORRY: A NEW TOM FAZIO THREAD

[MTWilkinson]

Set aside the traditional looks, the wonderful weathered bunkers, the decades-old traditions, the history of the golden age designs for a moment.  With all that stripped away, the inherent STRATEGY and SHOTMAKING of a Riviera, National, Seminole, Merion, etc. IN AND OF ITSELF is just so compelling that you could play them every day for the rest of your life.  

Then, I was considering the 20 or so Tom Fazio courses I've played.  When you strip away the framing (e.g., the wonderful looks, the "wow" factor), I don't recall one that excited me with its STRATEGY and SHOTMAKING.  It seems to me that on many of the courses you can hit it anywhere in the big, wide fairways, put it anywhere on the big, wide greens, and there's no significant difference.  The bunkers and hazards seem more decorative, than anything.  There's not a hole I recall, other than some of his par-three forced carries, where there's any indecision or puckering.  It's hit it as far as you can, reasonably straight, find your yardage, and dial it in from a flat lie to a green that you can be above or below the hole, or to either side.

My question is this:  What Fazio courses have others played that DO have strategic interest, and require working the ball one way or the other, hitting it low and running, high and soft, and so on?  Have I missed them?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

MT,
Suddenly I think that we may be long lost brothers.

[Tim_Weiman]

MT Wilkinson:

For many years I played in a two man tournament at Wild Dunes and had loads of fun with "strategy and shotmaking".  On nearly every hole there was some decision to make and/or some specific shot to be hit.

The course lost much of its aesthetic appeal over the years with the steady intrusion of real estate development and later hurricane Hugo.  But, year after year I always had fun at Wild Dunes.

[APBernstein]

Forest Creek fits everyone of your criteria in the last paragraph.  There are cross-bunkers for those who feel Fazio could not build such things.  There are greens that fall away from the player, forcing the player to run his shot into the green.  There is actual strategy, everywhere.  Yes, it can be done by Fazio.

Listen, I go both ways on Fazio.  He has built courses and he has built bad.  So have a lot of other architects.  I wish we could take about individual courses or at least characteristics of an architect, instead of just generalizations and stereotypes.

Either way, see Forest Creek.  It is a good course.

[Mike_Cirba]

World Woods Pine Barrens is the most interesting course by Tom Fazio I've played.  It is excellent, and makes me wonder what happened along the road to quantity over quality.

[Tim_Weiman]

MT Wilkinson:

Something else struck me about your post: why did you bother to play so many Fazio courses?

How much do you really care about "strategy and shotmaking"?  Do you actually prefer the "wow factor"?

Can you tell us which 20 Fazio courses you played?

Can you take the three courses mentioned thus far (Wild Dunes, Forest Creek and World Woods) and explain how you came to the conclusion that "strategy and shotmaking" were missing?

[Craig Van Egmond]

MT Wilkinson,

         Have you played Karsten Creek?

          I have played 5 Fazio courses, not a huge sampling compared to how many he has but we only have one in the Northwest and I haven't played it yet.

         I have played Greyhawk Raptor, Osprey Ridge, Primm Lakes and Desert and Karsten Creek.  The first four are all resort courses and live up to that. They cater to people usually only playing once and on vacation, high greens fees and have banked fairways that careen your ball back into place. All fine golf courses that deliver what the owners wanted.  Karsten Creek was built to be the home of the Oklahoma State Cowboys golf team, to challenge a team that has won 9 NCAA golf titles. It will not coddle you, no banked fairways, fast sloped greens that you better be in the right position on, you better be in the preferred angle off the tee for your approach shot. A fabulous course, one that you could play over and over again and not get bored.

         Bottom line, I  think Fazio gives his clients what they want and what they ask for.  It would be nice to see what he could do on a site that needed little earth movement and a small budget, maybe see some of his early stuff.

[SPDB]

i've played a number of fazio courses that require strategic thinking. i've also played some i didn't care for.

good one, in my memory:

world woods (pb)
galloway nat'l.
hartefeld nat'l.
forest creek
hudson nat'l (it has its moments, but not overwhelmingly so)


some i didn't care for

white columns
champion hills

[MTWilkinson]

Tim:

Fair questions, so I'll do my best to respond.

I've not played Forest Creek.  I played Wild Dunes 15 years ago before the hurricane so I don't have as good a recollection as I would like.  Even though I liked World Woods (I played both courses), I don't think the golf courses were THAT strategic.  World Woods seemed more like a neat place, with all of the practice facilities and the remoteness, and the great value for the price, with two good golf courses (I liked Pine Barrens more), than great architecture.

The most prominent Fazio courses I've played include The Quarry, Estancia, both Pelican Hills, Dancing Rabbit, Barton Creek, Old Overton, and many in Florida, and even though the "look" is strong, in retrospect, when I was reading one of the Riviera threads, I started thinking that I missed the decisions on every tee and second shot that you enjoy at Riviera and other classic courses on the several Fazio courses I've played.

I'll amend my own first post, though.  I played John's Island West three years ago and I think it had notable strategic interest in addition to good aesthetics.  It's a very underrated course.

I think "looks" are important, but for a course to have lasting appeal, especially if you're a member who's going to play it repeatedly, shotmaking and strategic challenges are more important, just to keep it interesting.

I'm glad to hear that there are some more interesting Fazio courses.  I'll try to play them in the coming years.

[SPDB]

MTWilkinson:

Thank you for reminding me. John's Island West is a great course, and has real strategic merit.

it also possesses one of the strongest finishing holes I have ever seen.

[Lou Duran]

Nearly every course I have ever played allowed for shots to be played in different ways (high, low, RTL, LTR, driver or irons of the tee, etc.).  That most people tend to play one way is a personal choice.  I think that too much is made of strategy, a concept that is often misunderstood.  Personally, give me a course with a lot of variety in length and direction, some firm and fast conditions, a little wind, and I will hit the shots that come to mind.

To answer your question, the aforementioned Wild Dunes is a Fazio course that had/has a lot of "strategy", and one that I really liked.  Barton Creek- Foothills, Osprey Point, and Bluewater Bay (?) are three of his courses that I didn't particularly care for, but can be played in a variety of ways.  I fully agree with Craig E., Fazio builds for his client.  Personally, I can't find fault in that.

[Mike_Cirba]

SPDB,

Other than a handful of holes, particularly the last three par fives and #17, can you tell me why I found Hartefeld National to be such a disappointing snooze?  

It didn't seem to matter where I hit the ball...all was forgiven and the next shot setup basically the same.

Talk about a fabulous property.  Talk about a missed opportunity!

[SPDB]

Mike, I think there is a lot of strategy, not on every single hole, but there is a lot there. I know few courses that require strategic choices on every shot.

1 - no strategy
2 - little drop shot par 3, with a menacing bunker - you need to hit it on the correct side of this green, or 3 jack is very possible. Also, if you go just over the green - you're dead.
3 - the toughest fazio hole i have ever played. the strategy of this blind shot into the green is that you need to play your drive down the left center to give yourself the clearest shot into this diabolical green. too far left - you'll have to negotiate the tree, too far right, you may have to carry the bunker with a long iron - no easy task - nearly impossible.
4. you need to play your drive down the left side close to the fairway bunkers in order to get access to the green on the next shot. Too far right in the fairway, and the stand of tree that is 40 yds short of the green will block you.
5. A little awkward par 5 that places no real premium on the tee shot. But the shot into the green forces you to take a longish iron into a green on which the putting surface isn't seen and over a huge nest of bunkers. As a 3 shotter, it is nothing to write home about.
6. The contouring on this green presents the strategy. this is a difficult green to hold, and an even tougher one to put on. Check it out:



7. Kind of snoozer until you have to hit and hold the skyline green.

8. I hate that this hole is now a par 5. It was such a stronger hole when it was a bear of a par 4. As a par 4 2 really good shots to get to the green, now - not so much. But apparently you like it since you said you like the last 3 par 5s, of which this is one.

9. zzzzzzzzz

I don't have the energy or time to keep going. But I will say that i really disagree with you here. I think Hartefeld possesses some of the best green contouring i have seen. Isn't that an element of strategery  

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

I have played Hartefeld National and there are a couple things that stand out in my memory.

Not to get off topic, but I loved the little clubhouse, especially the bar.  Did you come away with the same feeling?

Back to the course:

I remember two severe greens: the par 3 #6 and the par 4 #8.  I also remember enjoying the 18th hole.

Honestly, I'm guessing people in the area generally enjoy the course and find it to be all the challenge they can handle.

Any thoughts?


MT Wilkinson:

Thanks for responding.  FYI, I'm basically in agreement with the general view that Fazio places a great deal of emphasis on the aesthetic aspect and less on strategy.  It's just that I sometimes think this view is overdone, which is why I cited Wild Dunes, a course I am very familiar with.

Also, I'm of the opinion that the second course built at Pelican Hill is far more interesting than the first.  I could care less about playing the first course again, but honestly, I wouldn't mind playing several of the holes on the new course.

Just for equal time, I'm on record saying that I think there are examples of emphasizing aesthetics over strategy on my home course (Sand Ridge).  Part of this was the result of environmental permitting issues, but one example which was not involves the placement of fairway bunkers on the par 5 #3.  It's a text book example of "framing".  Even Dusty Murdock (who hired Fazio) reluctantly agreed with me that the Fazio team got this hole wrong.  I should emphasize "reluctantly" because overall Dusty is quite happy with Fazio's work.

[Tim_Weiman]

SPDB:

I agree with your assessment of #8 at Hartefeld.  It was brutal as a par 4, but doesn't make sense as a par 5.

[SPDB]

And Mike C. - is the property that fabulous? The topo is pretty severe at times. I know doubt believe that Flynn could string a set of pearls across it, but i think that Fazio did a pretty good job here.

[jim_lewis]

M.T.

This may be a good time for you to register as a member of GCA where you are likely to be welcomed with open arms. You see, the quickest way to fit is here is to take a few critical shots at Fazio. Heck, Tommy is already willing to claim you as a brother.

I have generally refrained from defending Fazio. In fact, I agree with some of the criticism he gets, and I, too, wish he would get out of the restoration/renovation business.  Besides, if you say something complimentary about Fazio, someone is likely to ask you if you work for him. Like you I have played many of his courses that were nothing special and a few that I didn't like at all.  On the otherhand, I think he has produced more excellent courses in the past two decades than any other architect, and I have had the opportunity to play many of them.

Like Tim, I wonder why you would bother to play 20 courses designed by an architect for whom you have so little respect. And, like others, I think your criticisms would be more instructive if you applied them to specific courses.

I was quite surprised to read your suggestion that his greens are tame enough that it makes little difference where you hit it on the green. Either you are the world's best putter or you and I have played different courses.  Even the most dependable Fazio critics usually give him credit for building greens that have a lot of "personality". Occasionally he is even criticized as designing greens that are over-the-top with the combination of slope and speed. I can tell you that at Forest Creek pin placements dictate your preferred shot into the green. I have had as few as 24 putts and as many as 42 in a single round there and hitting the approach to the correct/or wrong place on the green was the main variable. There are several pin placements where a chip shot from off the green is much preferred over a putt from the wrong spot. It takes a while learn those spots, but when you do, it absolutely influences your strategy on your approach shot, and it will vary from day to day.

One of the unfortunate disadvantages of playing a course only once or twice is that those subtleties may not be apparent except to the most discerning eye.

[Lou Duran]

Shivas-

I always thought that hitting fairways and greens was the key to good golf.  What would you call a course that penalizes hitting the center of them?  Uninteresting?  Bland?  I would say UNFAIR (oh boy!) and penal.

[MTWilkinson]

Jim Lewis:

I've heard some very good things about Forest Creek, though I haven't played it.  It sounds like a real solid home course.

I'm not trying to be critical of Fazio.  What I'm trying to find out is what courses he has designed that have significant strategic interest, which I guess, is my hot button when I'm looking at golf courses.  

I've had many enjoyable experiences playing Estancia, but it doesn't emphasize strategy and shotmaking as much as I would have hoped.  It's fun, beautiful, in great condition, memorable, but I'm not having to think much regarding preferred angles of play, working shots in, or placing the ball in specific places on the greens.  Same at The Quarry.  In my opinion, Estancia would have been an even better course if Fazio had placed more emphasis on shot values.  

I also recognize and agree with the post that many times the client sets the direction for the architect, and in the case of Estancia and The Quarry, they may have got what they wanted.

It sounds like Forest Creek and Sand Ridge have beauty AND strategy, and that's great.  I hope others can add to the list.

[ChrisB (Guest)]

Jim Lewis said it all:  "One of the unfortunate disadvantages of playing a course only once or twice is that those subtleties may not be apparent except to the most discerning eye."

What I've found on the Fazio courses I've played (both courses at World Woods, The Preserve, Caves Valley, Porters Neck, Kiawah Island (River), Pinehurst #8, and Primm Valley) is that holes look can simpler than they are [reverse-MacKenzie-ism?], and can take a few times around the course to pick up on some of the subtleties.

The Preserve is a good example.  I'll bet there have been several newcomers to the course who, after seeing it once or twice, reject it because they didn't think the holes (or greensites) had enough "strategic interest".  Interestingly, that's what many newcomers say about Pinehurst #2; they miss a lot as they go around for the first time or two, and then reject the course because the demands aren't always obvious.

[BillV]

Chris B

Please don't use Fazio and Pinehurst #2 in the same sentence or post without a negative qualifier of some sort.  

[jim_lewis]

Bill:

I agree that Forest Creek should not be compared th #2.
Pinehurst #2 is a GREAT golf course. Forest Creek is only EXCELLENT. I also agree with ChisB that #2 is a perfect example of a course that the less discerning never fully appreciate. Some even think the greens there are too fast. They are not. They are receptive to excellent approach shots, and will sometimes accept a good shot. Any thing less than good will not be tolerated and will not come to rest on the green, in which case, the challenge is to understand where to miss the green. GIR is a stat that has no place at #2.  Once on the green, they are subtle to read but not too fast, not even during the Open.

At Forest Creek the greens are more receptive but treacherous to putt if you get on the wrong part of the green.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Chris
Courses whose holes appear simpler than they really are - is this a new phenomenon that Fazio has developed or are there some other historical precedents? What are some of the complexities that I should be looking for?

Chris and Jim
Do you think Fazio suffers more so than other architects by the single play? Another words are his designs unique from other architects, past and present, in this respect?

The biggest complaint I hear about Fazio courses - other than strategic complaint - is that they overly shaped. Reflected in his view that nature is something to be overcome, something his predessors were unable to do. Nature with its flaws and irregularities is not something he embraces. Do you find his courses overly shaped - is that a fair complaint?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Jim,
    How would you compare the new nine (with nine more to come) at Forest Creek with the original 18 in terms of strategy, greens, etc.?  I remember yhou telling me it will be better than the first course.  More use of waste areas.

[ChrisB (Guest)]

Tom,

The complaints about overshaping are certainly valid.  The complaints about his views on classic architecture are valid.  I agree on both counts.  But the complaints about a lack of strategic interest inherent in Fazio designs are a little overdone, in my opinion.  Could it be that the dislike for his shaping and his views occupy the minds of his critics, and they miss some things that they otherwise would look harder for?  I don't know.

To me, Donald Ross was the master of designing courses that play harder than they look.