[Adam Warren]

Okay, maybe hate is not the right word, but why is there such complete and utter dislike and disgust expressed when discussing certain architects around here? 

Sure, I understand that around here it is all about the natural lay, walkability, and minimalism.  These items are important to me to an extent as well. I don't get why every time someone like Fazio is mentioned there is always a backhanded comment following it.  Why RTJ is such a bad person for going out and designing what we might now consider a boring golf course.  Why Pete Dye's name is often said with huff and a puff.  Why Nicklaus gets our panties in a wad (knickers in a twist!). There are a multitude of others I'm sure, but those come to mind directly. 

I'd say its pretty easy to love the guys that are relevant and popular right now like Doak, C&C, etc.   Also pretty easy to love the Ross, Raynor, L&M, etc of the old days and they are now talked about on television (to my knowledge this is a fairly recent occurrence). 

I'm not as well played as most here.  I have gotten around here and there are guys I like and dislike I suppose.  Every guy has a style and that style fits someone.  I think it might be forbidden on this board for some to mention they might enjoy a course from one of the aforementioned.  Just curious.  These guys made it for a reason.  Apparently they were not awful or they wouldn't have a ton of cash in their pockets (Nicklaus excluded) and their names be plastered all over the world.  Thoughts....

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

Even my work, some people love it, and others hate it.  There seems to be no in-between.  

But, isn't that a function of life in the modern world?  That's how our political discourse is today, much more polarized than before.  And that's how internet discussion groups are, on most topics, not just golf architecture.  I think it's an offshoot of the internet making it easy for anyone to express an opinion (as loudly as they want), thereby convincing them that their opinions hold equal weight to anyone else's.

Some would accuse me of starting the hatred toward certain architects with The Confidential Guide, but it did also include courses by Nicklaus (Desert Highlands) and Fazio (Shadow Creek) in the Gourmet's Choice.

[Jim Hoak]

I don't think you can equate financial success with architectural brilliance.  For example, I think that Tom Fazio has done a terrific job of identifying a market--building pretty golf courses for real estate developers to sell lots.  His courses appeal to a broad range of golfers--playable, fun, scenic, etc.  But, while I respect him for his business plan, I do not respect his courses for architectural success.  So, while I certainly don't hate him or his courses, I think the point of this Discussion Group is to celebrate and admire great golf architecture--not golf business success.

[Mike_Young]

I'm not sure hate is the right word.  
I see it this way.  The barrier for entry in becoming a golf architecture critic and expert is extremely easy.  When this site began it made it easy for guys to talk directly to TD or others and there was no other place for such.  The TF, RTJ, JN and such always relied on large corporate PR and advertising firms working for their developers to identify their companies.  They were out of touch with the "critic".  their critics were bought and paid for.  I bet if TF took 10 guys from this site to spend a weekend at one of his courses there would be a majority of them that would be TF fans at end of trip and the same for any other.  It's just human nature.  I have never been a fan of golf courses that were placed and not found but RE development created a huge market for "placed" golf courses and because they are attached to RE develpments they will need to spend huge advertising dollars to sell lots thus you will continue to hear much about them over some better courses.  JMO

[BCowan]

Adam

    I don't think that it is hate, I think that people are tired of certain archies like TF getting all the media.  TF and JN seem to have enormous maint. budgets and construction budgets.  Some may feel that their courses are being judged well for their conditioning factors and less on their design merits.  It is sad when I ask people about a course they played for the first time and their first response is the ''green speed'' that determined their outlook as well as the conditioning.  I think maybe some traditionalist feel that TF cared more about form than function and sustainability.  I do agree that C&C and others are getting all the atten. right now, but they did take a risk in doing something that wasn't the ''Current fashion''!

''But, isn't that a function of life in the modern world?  That's how our political discourse is today, much more polarized than before.  And that's how internet discussion groups are, on most topics, not just golf architecture.  I think it's an offshoot of the internet making it easy for anyone to express an opinion (as loudly as they want), thereby convincing them that their opinions hold equal weight to anyone else's.'' --- I think that GD and other Golf publications and Political outlets aren't representing many viewpoints.  The more the merrier.  I am just glad that people didn't look down at Donald Ross for not having a LA degree, for all that he brought to the game of Golf!  I am sure many don't like the idea of free exchanging ideas that aren't monitored by someone of stature!  Deviating from the approved 3 by 5 note card as a good thing imo.

[Garland Bayley]

If you think building artificial ponds in play on golf courses is the thing to do, then I hate you as a golf architect. End of Discussion.

The PGA hired AWT to get rid of top shot bunkers that lazy architects built. Why doesn't someone pay to get rid of top shot ponds that lazy architects build?

[John Kavanaugh]

It's not really hate when if the architect calls you go hat in hand. Sometimes you can't see the Forrest for the Tommy.

[DMoriarty]

A gratuitous cheap shot at Tommy after all these years?  Now there's your hate.

[John Kavanaugh]

A gratuitous cheap shot at Tommy after all these years?  Now there's your hate.

666. Remember that one?  Tommy invented hating architects.

[DMoriarty]

Tommy hates bad architecture.  He doesn't hate the architects. I am not surprised you don't get that distinction, as your posts are almost never about architecture and almost always about hating on someone or other.

[John Kavanaugh]

You can not throw a blanket over the light of a mans passion and call it objective criticism.  If it's not ignorance it is hate. I haven't met many ignorant people on this site.

[DMoriarty]

If it's not ignorance it is hate.

As your posts prove, these two usually walk hand in hand.

[John Kavanaugh]

If it's not ignorance it is hate.

As your posts prove, these two usually walk hand in hand.

I fully embrace the fact that I hate. It is an honest emotion. I like to think that I am straight up with people not just use them for personal gain. That's what I really hate. I have always hated the fact that people on this site disparage architects until they want access or work from one of their courses. You can not deny seeing that all the time.

How many raters on this site bash Fazio and then take that Shadow Creek comp out in Vegas?  I'd put it at 85%.

[Jason Thurman]

I wonder about this too. On one hand, guys like Nicklaus and Fazio have stamped their names on a ton of courses (see above), some pretty mediocre. There are fair criticisms of a lot of their work on courses where their associates handled design and construction and the results aren't all that impressive. It's a less "boutique" approach than the more hands-on style that most of the GCA favorites use, and the results are less consistent.

On the other hand, though, it's ridiculous to disregard the best work those guys have done. Fazio's top tier of courses is deep and has some amazing achievements. Shadow Creek may not be a model for the sustainability of the game, but it's certainly one of its great engineering achievements. There are tons of other really good Fazio courses too. I don't love Nicklaus' shaping sometimes, and his courses are really tough for me. But his signature designs also tend to have really sound strategic elements, even if they sometimes go too far on difficulty.

I guess the point is that most of these guys do really good work at their best, and sometimes it gets ignored. But in some cases, we hate on certain architects for the same reasons we hate on bands like Nickelback - because they stink. Fazio and Nicklaus aren't Nickelbacks, but I can think of a few guys who really might be as bad as their reputation on GCA would suggest.

[Jud_T]

I don't think it's hate.  I think many here have respect for a lot of the work of Nicklaus, Fazio et al. and enjoy a number of their courses.  It's just that their work generally doesn't tend to inspire many of us to the same extent as that of our favorite sons old and new.  Maybe it's the amount of time spent with boots on the ground, a level of respect and sympathy for the indigenous property or a certain je ne sais quoi, but it's more than group think at work here IMO.  Another issue which is admittedly at play is when you've played a half dozen of a designers courses that are well done and professional but not particularly unique, fun or inspirational, what's the incentive to travel the globe in search of their best work just to prove to onesself that you really were missing something and they really are capable of artistic greatness after all?

[Dan Smoot]

Every architect has his own likes that will come out in their designs.  It will eventually be identified as a style.  Individually, we will embrace, not embrace or not even understand certain aspects of that style.  We will emotionally react to it.  Hate is a very strong word which I personally try to avoid attaching to anything.  Classifying anyone as a "Bad person" because we don't identify with that style is certainly at least unfair.  Do I dislike the RTJ style vs the current minimalist style?  It is OK to have a preference and a differing opinion. I think it is healthy to at least be respectful of the other viewpoint.  As for relevancy, that will change.  

[Carl Nichols]

I wonder about this too. On one hand, guys like Nicklaus and Fazio have stamped their names on a ton of courses (see above), some pretty mediocre. There are fair criticisms of a lot of their work on courses where their associates handled design and construction and the results aren't all that impressive. It's a less "boutique" approach than the more hands-on style that most of the GCA favorites use, and the results are less consistent.

On the other hand, though, it's ridiculous to disregard the best work those guys have done. Fazio's top tier of courses is deep and has some amazing achievements. Shadow Creek may not be a model for the sustainability of the game, but it's certainly one of its great engineering achievements. There are tons of other really good Fazio courses too. I don't love Nicklaus' shaping sometimes, and his courses are really tough for me. But his signature designs also tend to have really sound strategic elements, even if they sometimes go too far on difficulty.

I guess the point is that most of these guys do really good work at their best, and sometimes it gets ignored. But in some cases, we hate on certain architects for the same reasons we hate on bands like Nickelback - because they stink. Fazio and Nicklaus aren't Nickelbacks, but I can think of a few guys who really might be as bad as their reputation on GCA would suggest.

Who would you say is the Nickelback of golf course architects? 

[Mike Hendren]

Sucking up to architects is off the charts on this site and the suckees benefit tremendously.  Heck,  I followed Doak around Dismal like a lap dog. 

As for "The Faz" as Tommy liked to call him I always look forward to playing one of his courses and can't recall a bad experience.  Fazio doesn't do architecture for the sake of architecture - he merely provides a nice playing ground.  It's good to be King of the Sixes.

Bogey

[Jeff_Brauer]

I know both Tommy N and Damian P (who Tommy used his name and 666 to imply something devilish) Name calling is not hating bad architecture.  It was poor form, and I know Tommy has tried to apologize for many of his indiscretions.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bogey - that's really good and simple, i.e. that Fazio doesn't do architecture for architecture's sake. I think that might apply to many good architects, past and present -- and that it might explain our fascination with and appreciation for some architects over others. To those interested in architecture, architecture for architecture's sake is the ideal; and, while it's a legitimate ideal, we who are so inclined might tend to forget that it isn't the only ideal/benchmark.

Peter

[jim_lewis]

I think unique and original are overrated. It seems that many on this site dismiss courses that don't include some "unique" features and cringe at anything that seems repetitive (unless done by Raynor or CBM). Frankly, I appreciate good solid golf design, what I like to call "pure golf". If you are a member of a club in Georgia (for example), why would you care if one of the holes seems to repeat one the architect designed 20 states away, one that you are not likely to ever see?

I'm ok with unique, to a point, but if all we choose to praise are unique designs, we will wind up with a lot of weird architecture. I think we may have benefited from a few courses by Mike Strantz, but what if he had lived to designed 200 courses? I'm not so sure that would have been a good thing for golf. He might have even had to resort to repeating a hole or two, heaven forbid.

You can call be old-fashioned (which I accept as a compliment), but I assert that not everything new is good, nor is everything old necessarily bad.

[Garland Bayley]

I know both Tommy N and Damian P (who Tommy used his name and 666 to imply something devilish) Name calling is not hating bad architecture.  It was poor form, and I know Tommy has tried to apologize for many of his indiscretions.

Speaking of Damian P, I hate him for being given an opportunity to do something really special, and instead giving us Monarch Ponds golf and fishing club.

[Jeff_Brauer]

GJ,

I am playing MD with Damian next month, I will be sure to tell him.  Looks good from photos and gets nice reviews and ratings, and I am sure I will make my own judgment on playing it.  I get a kick out of that old Fazio thread where a few have no qualms about saying "Well, I never played a Fazio, but here's what I don't like about them...."

[Tim_Weiman]

Adam,

I don't know if hate is the right word. But, certainly there are concerns about the trends architects like Tom Fazio represented, specifically those things which impact (increase) the cost of playing the game.

Geoff Shackelford was kind enough to quote me in his book about the future of golf: "Golfers want to play more, not pay more". That, I think, is the issue with Fazio and Co or at least one of the major issues. Spending loads of money to build a golf course just doesn't fit with those of us who believe golf architects should wherever possible build interesting courses without running up the costs.

[Adam Warren]

If only the people that said "I don't think hate is the right word" had read my original post....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()