You guys are stupid...#2 Typical Fazio

[DMoriarty]

So...what are these features so typical of Fazio that are found in all of his work...just name three...if you are not too stupid.

I've only played a couple of Fazio courses.  That ought to qualify me as stupid enough to participate here . . .  I dont presume to know who did what where, so when I refer to "Fazio" I include Mr. Tom Fazio and his whole company.  

Not sure what you mean by features, but here are a few typical themes (or preferences) of Fazio's work:


--  Fazio often builds courses on sites unsuitable for golf, by traditional standards.
--  Fazio often disregards the natural landscape/setting if the natural landscape/setting doesnt suit his design preferences.
--  Fazio sets out to build golf holes which photograph well.  He aims for an instant visual wow factor, with waterfalls, sharp features and contours, and other forms of visual flash.
--  Fazio aims to instantly gratify the golfer.
--  Fazio courses prefer downhill and avoid uphill par 3s.  
--  Fazio courses tend to contain misses, especially those on the right side of the golf holes.
--  Fazio courses tend to emphasize framing;  that is, they tend to feature vertical containment on each side of the hole to seperate the hole from the others and provide a vertical, visual frame for the golf shot.  The framing exists throughout the golf hole, and not just off the tee.
--  Fazio courses tend toward elevated, dramatic tees.
--  Fazio courses tend to minimize hazards which are actually in the line of play, and favor hazards which run parallel to the line of play.  
--  Fazio courses arent much concerned for creating strategic, risk/reward options for the golfer.  
--  Fazio courses tend to inform the golfer of the proper avenue of play, rather than confounding the golfer with multiple avenues and multiple choices.

There may be more . . .

[jim_lewis]

I logged onto this thread hoping to learn something. You see, I have always been impressed that some observers, who have played only a handful (or less) of an architect's (especially Fazio) courses, can assess and generalize about his entire body of work. I simply don't have that keen an eye. I have now seen more than 50 of Fazio's 200+ courses, and I still can't describe his "typical" course. The more I see of his work, the more I see variety. Everytime I try to form a generalization, I can think of an exception. I'll try again when I have played more of his courses. I have observed that while Fazio often builds two  courses for the same club, they usually have very different looks. He says he accomplishes that by not having the same lead design associate do both. I also know that while he may spend limited personal time on many sites, he is in regular communications with the on-site design associate, primarily through faxes used to gain his opinion/approval regarding design decisions.  I am not aware that he has ever failed to accept responsibility for any course with his name on it. I think he may be too proud to do that.

By the way, I don't think he still has the same reluctance to work far away from his Hendersonville, NC home. In fact, I don't think he lives there anymore. His Hendersonville home was for sale several months ago, and I think he spends most of his time down around Jupiter, Florida. His children are all away from home now, so he no longer has the need to get home every night.

[John_Conley]

I have now seen more than 50 of Fazio's 200+ courses, and I still can't describe his "typical" course. The more I see of his work, the more I see variety.

Crusty:

You've seen even more of his work than I have.  We get to see a lot of Fazio designs in Florida.

I agree with your sentiment and am looking for clarification.  Do you think the variety is more on his better or unique designs?  The ones where the sites are unusual and/or the stature of the club is higher.  I don't see as much variety in his work in Florida where sites tend to be flat and mundane by comparison.

He did Hudson National, no?  I think there are comparisons and similarities between Hudson and Spring Hill, which both are severe sites.

Regarding the assertion his multi-course complexes have provided the owners with variety, I don't know if that applies across the board.  Sabal and Cypress at Bonita Bay aren't cut from a different cloth and North and South and PGA Reserve seem interchangeable.  Go to Pine Barrens and Rolling Oaks and you clearly have two different animals.   Jury's out for me on Black Diamond.  Take away the quarry holes and the Quarry and the other 13 might pass for the Ranch.

[jim_lewis]

Hi John:

See there! I told you there are exceptions to all generalizations about Fazio, including my own.

I expect that much of the variety in Fazio's designs is driven by the wide variety of sites he works on. The same can probably be said of most architects whose work is as widespread as his. Dye comes to mind. Afterall, site is probably the single most influential factor in the design of any course. I have seen Fazio courses in 10 different states on sites ranging from the ideal rolling sandhills here in Pinehurst, to the coastal wetlands of the Southast, to some pretty severe sites in our own mountains, in California, Texas and Washington. I have not seen Shadow Creek, but I assume it is a little different from most.

[redanman]

I logged onto this thread hoping to learn something.

Who designed your home(r) course, crusty?
p.s.  Tommy says hello!
What site he (they) work(s) on is irrelevant because their philosophy is to buldoze all natural features wherever possible and create superior golf terrain and holes (paraphrased out of the "book".)

I know I'm not qualified to comment on Ross, Flynn or Mahan due to pre-conceived ideas.  But as I have played only more than 25 Fazio's am I only half as good as you at coming to conclusions?

Once again

Fazio's team, showing the hubris of self-titleing as "The World's Greatest Living Architect"(Why would only an American say such a thing, Tim Weiman, care toanswer that one?) needs to produce on a far superior level than they do to justify that moniker.  This is the heart of the matter.

BTW, Moriarty wrote a pretty good piece there.  Very little fluff.

Interesting comments made on this thread and even more interesting the blind Fazio supporters comments on only particular points, rather tan addressing them all.

[Tim_Weiman]

Bill,

Though opposed to the phase "typical Fazio" - it adds nothing to our discussion - I agree with you that Dave Moriarty wrote a pretty good little piece.

Perhaps Jim Lewis can take Dave's comments line by line and share where he agrees or disagrees.

As for the "world's greatest living architect" thing, why do you want me to defend it?

[JakaB]

DM offered 11 questions and here is my take:

1.  True....and very well I might add.
2.  True but stupid...should he design what he does not prefer as you say
3.  Stupid party line idiocy based only in what has been said on this site.
4.  Stupid freeze dried crystal crap.
5.  Newtons forth law of stupid...All holes on any given course all go down hill.
6.  True....just another option baby...at least on most first holes.
7.  Shadow Creek stupid Golf Digest article regurgitation.
8.  True....I've never teed off in a hole..but I might like it.
9.  Stupid...Forrest Creek has the best cross bunkers I have ever seen...and they are even up hill.
10. Stupid...do some field work my friend.
11. Somebody has to tell the stupid where to hit it.

[A.G._Crockett]

Wow, JakaB!
Great post!  I guess its actually true!  If you yell really loudly and hurl random insults, you MUST be right!

[Tim_Weiman]

JakaB:

Thanks for responding line by line to Dave's comments. I'll give them some thought, but off the top of my head I'm wondering a couple things:

a) Would the Fazio organization itself agree with all your points (e.g., #3, 4 and 7)?

b) Dave repeatedly used the word "tend". What is your understanding of this word?

[John_Conley]

Barney:

I don't think DMoriarty is stupid.

I don't think half of what he says is stupid either.

Also, you do not have to dictate to the golfer where to drive the ball.

[JakaB]

Sorry...and on review I will say my take on 11 was insulting....So another answer might be.

11.  I am a member of a Fazio course and of the 14 non par 3's I can only gaurantee you that I will hit driver everyday on numbers 6,9 and 10...a long bunkerless par 4 number one handicap hole and two par fives I can reach in two.  I think this defines options off of the tee but I never denied being stupid and it is only one course.   Of these three 9 is the only pure don't hit it in the bunker stupid....even though I do prefer to hit in the bunker on the right side as it is not death.

[JakaB]

I'm off for the day before I start talking about what I'm about to do...Thanks for the fun morning.

[George Pazin]

I find it interesting that a discussion on Fazio's work avoids any meaningful attempt to get at who in his office has been responsible for the work you cite and discuss....If many of you find a course not to your liking among the prolific architects you immediately paint all of that office's work as being the same.

I think the first part of this is pretty interesting. I've asked on occasion if the reason for the perhaps unusual results on courses by one firm are the result of different design associates, but this question has always gone unanswered. By way of example, I know that several on this board who are not very enamored with Mr. Fazio have said great things about Galloway; likewise, many "Rees bashers" have said great things about Olde Kinderhook. Could these aberrant offerings be the result of renegade associates, if you will? (Obviously I am exaggerating for effect - I know the big buys aren't just going to unleash someone with no oversight).

The second part of this quote is a weak generalization of the type that the critics of the posters on this site love to make. The many critics of the whipping boys are far more detailed and specific in their criticisms than the defenders, who love to paint with broad strokes like this, rather than address said criticism.

[DMoriarty]

Barney, you said name three features, and I got three "True['s]" and one "True but stupid['s]."   So am I stupid, or what?

JakaB and jim_lewis,  

As I said, I've only played a few of his courses.  So I don't know whether the above are true or not, except that they hold true on the few I've played.

But sometimes maybe a few words are worth 10,000 pictures . . . and 50 or so course visits as well.  My complete list of tendencies came from a quick read of Mr. Fazio's book (I can always take the time to look at the pictures later.)  Tom Fazio seems like a pretty honorable guy to me, so I just cant imagine that he would distort his own design principles in his book.  

For example, I said:  Fazio courses tend to emphasize framing; that is, they tend to feature vertical containment on each side of the hole to seperate the hole from the others and provide a vertical, visual frame for the golf shot.  The framing exists throughout the golf hole, and not just off the tee.

In his section aptly entitled "Framing"  (178-180), Mr. Fazio says:

As you probably have noticed while leafing through the photographs and captions in this book, the concept of framing is very much on our minds as we design golf holes. In my opinion, framing is a significant design consideration both for the long range views golfers see and for the progression of the individual shotsa nd settings they encounter as the play a hole.  This begins at the tee and follows golfers as they proceed along the fairway to the framing that's presented at the green.  In addition, we try to find settings in which the hole is as attractive or dramatic looking back from forward green toward the tee as it is from tee to green.
. . .

Today we look for frames-- trees, hedgerows, stone walls, creeks, natural contours, etc.-- and if they arent present, we create them.  Safety is another reason for using vertical separations between holes because errant shots fallihng anywhere on the course are more an issue nowadays than they have been in the past.

JakaB, Perhaps you should contact Mr. Fazio and explain to him that he really isnt concerned with framing and any opinion to the contrary is Shadow Creek stupid Golf Digest article regurgitation.

JakaB and Jim Lewis,

As I have said (repeatedly now), I've only played a few Fazio courses.  You guys obviously have quite a lot to teach me.  I would be greatful if each or both of you would take another look at his book and tell me with which of my listed "tendencies" Fazio would disagree?

[Tim_Weiman]

Dave Moriarty:

Thanks for the reference to Fazio's own writing on the framing issue. I was very surprised JakaB disagreed with you on this point.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ray Charles, Little Stevie Wonder, Jose Feliciano and Rush Limbaugh could play any Fazio course out here West of the Mississippi and be underwhelmed.

[DMoriarty]

Tim,

I took every point from Mr. Fazio's book.  So, JakaB is essentially calling Mr. Fazio "stupid" and implying that Mr. Fazio is incapable of understanding his own architecture.  Perhaps JakaB thinks he has seen more of Mr. Fazio's work than Mr. Fazio?

To those who credited me with the concise post above, Mr. Fazio deserves the credit. I merely skimmed Mr. Fazio's book and pulled out my list.   I am sure my list could be quite a bit longer if I spent more time going through the book.

I find it fascinating that Fazio apologists such as my friend JakaB repeatedly accuse others on this site of misrepresenting and/or baselessly criticizing Fazio's architecture.  After looking at Fazio's book, I am more convinced than ever that Mr. Fazio embraces and espouses many of the architectural preferences which are consistently criticized by some on this site.  I see no bias or unfairness in honestly and consistently disagreeing with a man's principles, when one's own principles contradict.  

Why is it so so incomprehensible that some just dont agree with the way Mr. Fazio builds courses and generally don't like the courses he produces?  Do you Fazio apologists really think that playing more of Fazio's courses will change the minds of those who disagree with his fundamental approach to golf architecture?  

[A.G._Crockett]

Tommy
I don't think Jose Feliciano plays golf.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

and how he is influencing or changing the classics.........

You forgot that one David!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

A.G., it was a joke......a poor senseless and tasteless joke, (and opinion) just like that huge pumpkin head Russ Limbo espoused on the world when he made his disparaging remarks.

I hope both he and Fazio resign from......everything!
(another joke)

Tell you what, since my remarks can be deemed racist against dittoheads, I'll resign my commission from Golf Club Atlas--my media outlet. (another joke)

[Tim_Weiman]

Dave,

Not surprised. Whether or not one enjoys Fazio's work, his book does pretty clearly lay out his views about architecture.

Again, I was especially surprised that JakaB challenged you on the framing issue. Fazio is very clear about this matter.

I'm also surprised that JakaB questioned Fazio's efforts to create strong visual appeal. A good example can be found on #11 at Sand Ridge where the wetlands behind the green can be very appealing to the eye, especially in the fall. Also, "viewslots" permitting one to see from one section of the course to another were developed to highlight the beauty of the property.

I don't think I'm being "biased" in providing those examples.

The fact is that many people enjoy the way Fazio designs golf courses. He would not have the success he has unless that were true. There are also those who believe other architectural firms are doing better, more interesting work, often for far less money.

I won't jump to the conclusion either group is stupid. Hell, I can have fun on many courses that wouldn't make anyone's Top 100 or even Top 500. But, I often get the impression that Fazio supporters are less confident in their architectural views than say fans of Crenshaw & Coore.

[A.G._Crockett]

Tommy
I am equally tasteless, as I was joking as well.
However, I would like to believe that if Stevie and Ray DO play, they wouldn't play with Rush!

[Dan Kelly]

I would like to believe that if Stevie and Ray DO play, they wouldn't play with Rush!

You can say that again! By the end of 18 holes, they'd probably wish they were blind AND deaf!

--------------

(Please note, those who need to: This was an attempt at cheap humor. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Mr. Limbaugh's political opinions -- but MERELY with his well-known fondness for hearing himself talk. I'd have said exactly the same thing if we were talking about, say, Al Franken!)

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dan, In other words your views are both fair and balanced--correct?

A.G.,
To me, Rush Limbo is a big fat idiot, but then again, I am too. I'm sure Tom Fazio and Rees Jones would agree with this also. But then again, I think this is what the root or the crux of the problem JakaB was getting at.

I could go on further, but I have a 2:00 tee time with Little Stevie, Ray and Jose, and I still have to go by Rush's house beforehand, to pick-up some pain medication to get me through it.

[Lou_Duran]

Redanman states "I don't give points.  I don't give strokes either."  As someone much taller than I once advised me, "That's not very sporting on your part"!

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy!  What can I say.  The way you talk about two of my favorite people- Tom and Rush.  It almost pains me to read your words.  If it wasn't something so socially desirable for members of this site to have a fine Italian man with a big heart succeed, you probably would be getting ripped to shreds.  And here I was ready to shake down the man himself for an autograph to send you while he was here yesteday playing in the Fazio Cup at the Vaquero Club.  BTW, when is the Hanse/Shackelford Cup at your beloved Rustic Canyon?  If I can get Rush to come, can he?