You guys are stupid...#2 Typical Fazio

[Steve Lang]

 

Ya know, for something like the nerve agent Sarin, lethal dose is about 30 mg/kg body weight, so given the average golf fan weighs ~75 kg (165 lbs), one golf ball weight of the stuff (45.93 grams max) could kill over 2000 people.  

You do the math for a baker's dozen  then figure 6-15 lbs per projectile / rocket and you get the picture.  

Binary Technology
Most chemical ammunition can be described as unitary, which implies that it contains one active ready-to-use Chemical Weapon agent. Binary technology implies that the final stage in the synthesis of the nerve agent is moved from the factory into the warhead, which thus functions as a chemical reactor. Two initial substances which are stored in separate containers are mixed and allowed to react and form the nerve agent when the ammunition (bomb, projectile, grenade, etc.) is on its way towards the target.

Until the actual moment of use, the ammunition contains only relatively non-toxic initial substances. It is therefore considered to be safer to manufacture, store, transport and, finally, destroy. However, some critics question whether this practically untested type of new ammunition is reliable. The technique for mixing substances in bombs and rockets is complicated and requires space. The reaction has to be controlled (e.g., the temperature) and the process should preferably take place without solvents.

In 1991 Iraq declared to the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) a different binary munitions concept. According to this the munitions were stored containing one component. Shortly before use the munitions were opened and the second component was added. Thus the reaction began even before the munitions were launched.

Perhaps one reason folks are real careful looking for this stuff!

[DMoriarty]

Come on guys.  My questions are relatively straight forward . . . why no answers?  

[George Pazin]

Dave -

I sent you my views in a private message. As I stated in the message, this thread has drifted so far off GCA that I think it's time to go private.

Apologies again to anyone I offended in my Saturday tirade. It's hard for me to imagine that things are not markedly better for the people of Iraq & that's the bottom line for me.

Anyone catch the interview with Kay regarding weapons inspection searches over the weekend? Probably not, it was on FoxNews. Seems pretty clear to me the effort was being made by Hussein, all that's left now is to debate the meaning of the word "imminent."

[Tim_Weiman]

Dave Moriarty:

Sorry. I actually feel quilty going off on a non golf architecture tangent, especially when I speak out from time to time against doing so.

But.......


When the famous CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite retired he warned about the dangers of public policy making in an era of the electronic media. He never imagined that the seven o’clock news – all 24 minutes of it after time for commercials – would be replaced with cable news and the 24 hour news cycle. Nor did he appreciate that an explosion in programming time might not, in itself, eliminate these dangers. The claim that Bush “lied” about Iraq and WMD is testimony to that problem.

In fact, people who suggest Bush “lied” ignore more than a decade of national security policy discussions, including countless hours of congressional testimony, articles written and speeches given about how the world has changed and how the United States should respond. Those who bothered to follow this discussion – isn’t that what citizens are supposed to do? – understand that the fall of the Iron Curtain meant the end of the “bipolar” world of two “superpowers” and our ability to rely on the doctrine of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD). Out of these discussions came the Bush policy of “preemption” as a means to deal with WMD, their use by non state actors and support that may be given to them by state governments.

One can, of course, challenge the doctrine of “preemption” or question whether it was appropriate in the case of Iraq. The doctrine is not bullet proof or without problems. But, one does have to recognize that the “preemption” doctrine Bush espoused specifically called for taking action before threats became imminent. That is precisely why he evoked Churchill in the 1930s, a lone voice who earlier argued – clearly, but unsuccessfully - that dangers must be addressed well before they reach the doorstep.

George Pazin:

Actually, there have been several interviews lately of former UNSCOM inspectors who have offered words of caution about jumping to the conclusion that Bush "lied" about WMD in Iraq. They expressed the view that ultimately the sophistication of Saddam's concealment efforts would emerge. But, they believe the likely finding will be an emphasis by Saddam on developing WMD capability rather than maintaining large stock piles. Keep in mind that when Churchill warned about Germany in the early 1930's, the essence of his case was all about capability and intent. The German industrial machine was only beginning to crank and Churchill's UK critics were still preoccupied with reducing French military capability. The first boys ashore at Normandy would later pay the price.

[ACR]

I will preface this with the fact that I am not as down on Fazio as a lot of people on this site.  I think he has done some nice work (Wade Hampton, The Golf Club of Tennessee, The Frog in Atlanta), although I acknowledge that his courses tend to lack any risky or quirky design features.

He does have a few formulaic features that seem to appear on every course.  He always has a driveable par 4 and he almost always has one hole with no bunkering.  The former policy I like, but the latter can be a little bit contrived, especially on a course with many many huge bunkers on every other hole (e.g. #8 at Crabapple).

What he does well (which is why he keeps getting hired) is he makes courses that are very playable for all skill levels.  There are few forced carries and almost every hole has a bail out option somewhere.  In spite of this, most of his courses are fairly tough for good players.  I do not think his green complexes are particularly boring, although they are fairly predictable.  Again, more than anything, Fazio does not take risks.  He almost never designs a feature that could ever be considered controversial.  He is the anti-Strantz.

I will admit that he is off the deep end on costs.  They spent $45MM on Crabapple, AFTER Fazio told the members that it was a "great piece of land".

[Tim_Weiman]

ACR:

Thanks for redirecting the conservation back to Fazio and golf architecture. You have raised an interesting point: why would someone spend $45 million dollars on a "great piece of land".

I think that subject is worthy of its own thread....which I will promptly start, if you don't mind.

[Bill Brightly]

oops, wrong thread.

[ChrisHervochon]

Just to chime in...

I just don't enjoy Fazio copying his own work from one course to the other.

[Sean Leary]

Just to chime in...

I just don't enjoy Fazio copying his own work from one course to the other.

But it's OK when Coore and Crenshaw do it.

[Bill_McBride]

Question:  has anyone played Falling Oak in Biloxi, MS?  I've heard very good things about it and need to get over there.  A young friend who used to be on Fazio's design team and was team leader is now here in Pensacola working in commercial real estate development.

I would appreciate any reports anyone can offer.

[DMoriarty]

Just to chime in...

I just don't enjoy Fazio copying his own work from one course to the other.

But it's OK when Coore and Crenshaw do it.

Sean,  could you clarify what you mean when you imply that Coore and Crenshaw copy their own work from one course to another?   

I've played a handful of their courses and have not found this to be the case.    Are you perhaps referring to their aesthetic style and/or their overall approach to golf design?   Because in these I have seen similarity from course to course, but I don't mind and in fact enjoy when designers have a consistent methodology and aesthetic sensibility, especially if it agrees with mine.   Among other things, a consistent approach or methodology or theory and a certain aesthetic sensibility tie the various works together. 

But as for actually building the rote holes on multiple courses, I just haven't seen it with Coore and Crenshaw.   Their sites are too varied, and because of their overall understanding, approach, methodology, process whatever you want to call it, the golf holes are very much tied to the sites.   

All that being said, there are a few minor stylistic consistencies on some of their courses that I think they rely on a bit too much, but I doubt that is what you had in mind.   

What did you have in mind?   Do you have any examples? 

Thanks.


P.S.  I havent played enough of Fazio's work to comment on whether or not he builds the same holes over and over.   

[ChrisHervochon]

I cannot comment on Coore and Crenshaw, as I have not played any of their courses, nor did I say it was ok if they do it.  However, the par 5 9th at the Disney course is copied on Caves Valley.  There is also a par 3 at my home course, Pine Hill, that was copied from World Woods. 

[Sean Leary]

David,

I haven't played enough C and C to be an expert, but what I meant is a little of all of what you wrote.

Stylistically, for sure, (honestly, a lot of my thoughts are based on pics only). I have heard and read that many of their green complexes can be repetitive (Lion's mouth etc). I have more experience with Doak, and I don't find his work to be repetitive at all. For what its worth, I prefer C and C's style much more than Fazio.

Fazio has built a ton of golf courses, and for sure, he copies a lot of what he had done in the past. C and C have built very few, so it is easier to not do rote holes as you say.

I think part of it is that Faz often builds on difficult sites, and has found holes that work on difficult terrain, and he goes back to the well on those, perhaps too much. He does too many false fronts for my preference, and not enough centerline hazards.

Fazio gets blamed too much, imo, for defacing our classic courses.  I blame the people that hire him to make changes more than him. When Coore touches an epic green like Prairie Dunes number 2, he gets a pass. Fazio goes anything and gets killed.....

[Kirk Gill]

I think the issue of architects "copying" their own holes, or repeating themselves, is an interesting issue. On one hand, I can see why someone who gets around a lot and plays a lot of courses might get tired of a particular design characteristic that an architect likes enough to repeat. But to what degree should an architect base his choices on whether or not he'd done something before, particularly when designing for private clubs?

Should Coore and Crenshaw not do a lion's mouth bunker at Colorado Golf Club once they've built one at Sand Hills, based on the notion that people who have played one will somehow be less interested in playing another? Should Jim Engh, having once built one of his "muscle" bunkers, stop building them because once someone has played a hole with one they'll have a "been there-done that" attitude towards them? And if this is so, why does it seem like so many older courses get a pass in this area, when they are monotonously bunkered (one on the outside of the dogleg, one on each side of the green..........)?

And another question or two born out of true ignorance.....how many golfers really get around enough to have seen enough of these designs to actually get bored by them, or be turned off that they're "repeats?" And if a bit of land seems best-suited to contain a certain type of hole, how many times should an architect have already designed that type of hole previously before they say "sorry, can't do that again, we'll have to go for something different here..." 

[ChrisHervochon]

I can't say that it bores me, but it does make me sad. In the case of Pine Hill, the hole that is copied from WW is in a spot where a par 4 could have fit nicely, or there is a ton of space to do something that was maybe a bit different.  The land there was spectacular, there was no need to create an exact copy. 

In the case of the hole at Caves, the lake to the right of the par 5 is artificial, and the hole looks a lot more contrived than the version at Disney.  When the entire hole is a copy, it is just kind of sad.  A good hole is a good hole, so it shouldn't bore people.

Furthermore, I think that a certain bunker style which can be repeated, or the repetition of a strategic concept can be repeated.  Concepts?  Yes.  Entire holes? No.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I haven't played enough C and C to be an expert, but what I meant is a little of all of what you wrote.

Stylistically, for sure, (honestly, a lot of my thoughts are based on pics only). I have heard and read that many of their green complexes can be repetitive (Lion's mouth etc). I have more experience with Doak, and I don't find his work to be repetitive at all. For what its worth, I prefer C and C's style much more than Fazio.

I haven't noted a similarity in greens, except perhaps in how they are constructed.  There are definitely some repeated themes, but I'd have to see more to really believe they were too similar. 

Fazio has built a ton of golf courses, and for sure, he copies a lot of what he had done in the past. C and C have built very few, so it is easier to not do rote holes as you say.

Maybe, but I think the fact that C and C usually committed to what the ground gives them pretty much eliminates the possibility of out and out copying of holes.   

I think part of it is that Faz often builds on difficult sites, and has found holes that work on difficult terrain, and he goes back to the well on those, perhaps too much. He does too many false fronts for my preference, and not enough centerline hazards.

Not even experience on his courses to comment.

Fazio gets blamed too much, imo, for defacing our classic courses.  I blame the people that hire him to make changes more than him. When Coore touches an epic green like Prairie Dunes number 2, he gets a pass. Fazio goes anything and gets killed.....

Well, I am not so sure that this is true.  It seems like there is a spectrum of reasons one might condemn a designer who alters old great courses.  Here are just two:

On the one hand, we could take the near absolute position that the great classics should never be altered by anyone, except in extreme and absolutely necessary circumstances (think eminent domain.) Under this view, Fazio and C&C are equally culpable.

On the other hand, one could recognize that sometimes changes are needed and may actually be for the best of the club/course, but only if the changes are carried out in a way that is entirely sympathetic and consistent with the style and personality of the course.   Under this view, we might look at the reasonableness of and need for the changes, as well as the final result to see if the changes fit in with the course and make sense. 

While, I have not yet seen the changed 2nd at Prairie Dunes, but I have seen some of Fazio's changes at Riviera.  I am not sure the reason for the changes, but whatever the reason, some of them completely clash with the rest of the course.    For example, the extension of the 17th green in the back right is absolutely hideous and looks nothing like anything on the course.   And it has a little mound surrounding it that I do not get at all.   



 

[Mike Hendren]

A very insightful thread on this very topic featuring a bunch of GCA hall-of-famers and some dude named JakaB.

Strongly recommend taking the time to wade through it.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Nice to see that Jaka B has always been the same