The Most Damning Critic of Tom Fazio is . . . Mr. Fazio himself?

[DMoriarty]

Until very recently I tried to steer clear of the Fazio discussions.  I have only played a few of his courses in So. Cal., so I didnt have much to say.  Plus, the 'conversations' tended to break down into two camps:  One camp claims that Fazio courses emphasize claims of eye candy, lack of strategy, framing, containment, waterfalls, elevated tees, desregard of nature; while the other side claims that this is just a false stereotype, not based in experience, and full of bias.

Tiring of this stale conversation and thinking that it was about time I learned more about the most popular architect in the world, I read (skimmed actually) Mr. Fazio's book.   To my surprise, Mr. Fazio unabashedly embraced most of the themes or "preferences" as alleged by his detractors.  I made a quick list as I read, concluding that Mr. Fazio aims to builds his courses following these general preferences (there may be more):

--  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.

Why was I surprised this this?  After all, most of the golfing public probably agrees with him?  Well, I wasnt so much surprised with Mr. Fazio, but with his defenders and the awkward position in which they have put themselves.

Almost all of the defenders on this site tend to try to find examples that contradict, rather than confirm Mr. Fazio's views.  They search for strategic Fazio courses; They try to find Fazio courses which dont provide a roadmap to the golfer; They try to find holes which arent framed.  In short they seem to embrace many of the design priniciples of the Fazio detractors, then try to present Fazio as if he agrees with them, too.  

So, defenders of Fazio, what is up?  Do you agree with Mr. Fazio's design preferences, or not?  

[Tim_Weiman]

Dave:

I've also read the Fazio book and agree with your suggestion that Fazio pretty clearly states his views on design. Indeed, if I recall, on more than one occasion he acknowledges opposing views while comfortably, even strongly, expressing his own.

Whether all that amounts to damning criticism remains open for debate. Fazio works very well for certain clients and clearly has a broad market appeal. He does, however, fare less well amongst hard core architecture junkies.

Just for fun I'll take a Fazio course where I once made a couple real estate investments and go down your list of points with "true" or "false" response. The course is Wild Dunes, perhaps Fazio's first big solo design:

# 1 - False
# 2 - False
# 3 - False
# 4 - False
# 5 - False, though downhill #12 is really nice
# 6 - False
# 7 - False
# 8 - False, though there are a couple nice examples
# 9 - True
#10 - False
#11 - True

Going through the same for Sand Ridge, I would answer as follows:

# 1 - False
# 2 - False
# 3 - Somewhere in between
# 4 - False....not possible with the bluegrass
# 5 - False.....greens and tees similiar elevation
# 6 - False
# 7 - False
# 8 - False, though there are some nice ones
# 9 - True, with a few exceptions, notably #18
#10 - Debatable leaning false
#11 - True, with #18 as exception

Not sure what any of this says or if these two courses are representative of Fazio's overall work.

Perhaps other people familiar with other Fazio designs might go through the same exercise.

[Brian Phillips]

Tim,

I don't know anything about Fazio apart from his book and the pictures posted here.  However, is it fair of you to use one of his early designs as a comparison to the statements made in a book published just a few years ago.

Brian

[A_Clay_Man]

Do too many cooks ruin the food? Maybe not ruin, but certainly the chance of making "it" better the next time, is greatly diminished.

 How are we to really know which of the courses/holes/features are truly TF or a combination of work by a combination of design associates, who are given TF's approval or not? Same with JN?

[David Wigler]

Dave,

Why use the term Damning Critic?  The guy is the most successful and versatile architect working today.  I do not see damning criticism in what he does.  He builds courses for golfers and his courses work and sell well.  He is capable of building a strategic wasteland that is strictly eye candy like Primm Valley Lakes and an extremely strategic exercise like GlenWild or Victoria National.  To me, that is brilliance.  I just wish he would leave the restoration business.

[ACR]

I'll give Tim's exercise a shot for a few other Fazio courses.

Wade Hampton

#1 --  Fazio often builds courses on sites unsuitable for golf, by traditional standards.
FALSE

#2 --  Fazio often disregards the natural landscape/setting if the natural landscape/setting doesnt suit his design preferences.
FALSE

#3 --  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.
TRUE

#4 --  Fazio aims to instantly gratify the golfer.
TRUE

#5 --  Fazio courses prefer downhill and avoid uphill par 3s.  
TRUE - #3 IS SLIGHLTY DOWNHILL, WHILE 6, 11 AND 17 ARE DRAMATICALLY SO

#6 --  Fazio courses tend to contain misses, especially those on the right side of the golf holes.
TRUE

#7 --  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.
TRUE

#8 --  Fazio courses tend toward elevated, dramatic tees.
NOT REALLY.  #1 AND MOST PAR 3S HAVE THIS FEATURE, BUT NOT MANY OTHER HOLES

#9 --  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.  
IN BETWEEN, BUT LEANING FALSE - HAZARDS ARE IN THE LINE OF PLAY ON 6, 7, 9, 17 AND ARE PRETTY CLOSE ON 3 AND 18

#10 --  Fazio courses arent much concerned for creating strategic, risk/reward options for the golfer.  
TRUE

#11 --  Fazio courses tend to inform the golfer of the proper avenue of play, rather than confounding the golfer with multiple avenues and multiple choices.
TRUE

>>>>>
Golf Club of Tennessee

#1 - False
#2 - False
#3 - True
#4 - True
#5 - False - 4 and 14 are downhill while 8 and 10 are flat to uphill
#6 - Less so than WH, but True in general
#7 - True
#8 - False, with some exceptions on the front (4, 5 and 6)
#9 - True in general
#10 - True
#11 - True

>>>>>>>>>
Crabapple

#1 - True
#2 - True
#3 - True
#4 - True
#5 - False - 3 and 6 are downhill while 13 and 15 are flat to uphill
#6 - True, but Crabapple has misses on both sides of every hole (unless they grow the rough to 4")
#7 - False, or at least less so than most of his courses
#8 - False with a couple of exceptions
#9 - N/A because there are almost no hazards
#10 - I would say false here.  With some very short par 4s and reachable par 5s with good bunkering, I think there are several strategic decisions that the player has to make
#11 - Less so than most of his work

[A.G._Crockett]

ACR,
I'd agree with all of what you wrote about Crabapple except #6.  My recollection is that, especially on the front nine, misses to the right are more playable and contained than to the left.  As you say, this depends on the length of the rough.
#2, #3, #4, and #5 all leave easier recoveries from misses to the right than misses to the left, and I think that most of the course is either that way or "side-neutral" in terms of missing off the tee.

[ACR]

A.G.
I guess you are right now that I think about it, but it sort of depends on what trouble you prefer.  Most of the bunkering seems to be on the left, so for most players, that is a worse result than right.  Personally, I think left is better on a lot of the holes.  I would rather miss left on 1, 5, 7, 8 and 11,  while the right side clearly provides the best bail out on 2, 10, 16, 17 and 18.  The rest are sort of indifferent.  That said, the  true bail out options are almost all on the right, as you said.  I may prefer to miss left in a few spots, but only on 7 is left really safe.  On 2, 16 and 17, right is wide open.  I stand corrected.

[Tim_Weiman]

Brian Phillips:

I am sometimes considered a defender of Fazio, but actually I really haven't seen that much of his work. Wild Dunes and Sand Ridge are two courses where I've made investments and know very well, so that is why I selected them.

As for Wild Dunes, I do think it is relevant because it really was the course that put Fazio on the map - leaving aside the family connections he brought to the table. Moreover, the course has fallen in the eyes of many people - thanks to Hugo and excessive real estate development which strip away so much of its original beauty. Few people even remember the days when there was nothing more than a trailer on site and the place really lived up to its name -"wild".

Let me also say that I think Dave Moriarty has done a good thing. Fazio, along with Rees Jones, is one of those architects who has produced acrimony at this site. Dave has shown us a way to discuss his work more objectively, a big step forward in my opinion.

FYI, I did live in Southern California in the late 1980s/early 1990s and played both Pelican Hill courses several times. Perhaps one of the California boys - who better than Tommy? - can go through this exercise on one of those courses. I'd be happy to offer my view as to whether the input is fair or just the result of "bias".

ACR:

Thanks for your participation. It's interesting to see the range of responses.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I'll do two Southern California courses here for the time being.

The Quarry At La Quinta

TRUE--  Fazio often builds courses on sites unsuitable for golf, by traditional standards.
TRUE (With exception to four holes in the middle of the back nine)--  Fazio often disregards the natural landscape/setting if the natural landscape/setting doesnt suit his design preferences.
TRUE--  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.
TRUE--  Fazio aims to instantly gratify the golfer.
TRUE--  Fazio courses prefer downhill and avoid uphill par 3s.  
Somewhat True--  Fazio courses tend to contain misses, especially those on the right side of the golf holes.
TRUE--  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.
TRUE--  Fazio courses tend toward elevated, dramatic tees.
TRUE--  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.  
Somewhat True--  Fazio courses arent much concerned for creating strategic, risk/reward options for the golfer.  
Somewhat True--  Fazio courses tend to inform the golfer of the proper avenue of play, rather than confounding the golfer with multiple avenues and multiple choices.


Shady Canyon

False--  Fazio often builds courses on sites unsuitable for golf, by traditional standards.
True--  Fazio often disregards the natural landscape/setting if the natural landscape/setting doesnt suit his design preferences.
True--  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.
True--  Fazio aims to instantly gratify the golfer.
Somewhat True (The par 4 5th is somewhat slightly uphill, and it's the best green on the course)--  Fazio courses prefer downhill and avoid uphill par 3s.  
True--  Fazio courses tend to contain misses, especially those on the right side of the golf holes.
True--  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.
True(Whenever there is an opportunity here to do so, he does it)--  Fazio courses tend toward elevated, dramatic tees.
True(With exception to the 9th, the best par 5 that I have seen Fazio do to date)--  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.  
False--  Fazio courses arent much concerned for creating strategic, risk/reward options for the golfer.  
True--  Fazio courses tend to inform the golfer of the proper avenue of play, rather than confounding the golfer with multiple avenues and multiple choices.

[THuckaby2]

Shadow Creek:

--  Fazio often builds courses on sites unsuitable for golf, by traditional standards.
NOTHING COULD BE MORE TRUE
--  Fazio often disregards the natural landscape/setting if the natural landscape/setting doesnt suit his design preferences.
HELL YES IT'S TRUE
--  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.
DAMN RIGHT, TRUE
--  Fazio aims to instantly gratify the golfer.
TRUE AGAIN!
--  Fazio courses prefer downhill and avoid uphill par 3s.
TRUE  
--  Fazio courses tend to contain misses, especially those on the right side of the golf holes.
FALSE
--  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.
TRUE
--  Fazio courses tend toward elevated, dramatic tees.
FALSE FOR THE MOST PART
--  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.  
FALSE
--  Fazio courses arent much concerned for creating strategic, risk/reward options for the golfer.
FALSE
--  Fazio courses tend to inform the golfer of the proper avenue of play, rather than confounding the golfer with multiple avenues and multiple choices.
TRUE

TH

[modified to include only the basic assessment, as per request]

[JakaB]

Shiv and Juck...

How does Fazio instantly gratify the golfer...I almost get it at Shadow Creek but how at the Glen Club...

[W.H. Cosgrove]

LAND UNSUITABLE FOR GOLF BY TRADITIONAL STANDARDS.  Quarry LaQuinta, Bighorn, Victoria National, Spring Hill.  Somewhat: Members Club at Alderra.  And these are just the ones I played.  

No Matter what the opinion on Mr. Fazio or these golf courses( I have been chastized for my views on some of these).  You gotta admit, that given enough money and cojones, Mr. Fazio will put turf on your site and convince you that this is a great golf course.  And by the way considering the site, some of these are pretty darn playable.

NOW AIN'T THAT THE AMERICAN WAY!  

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I think we can do without "lambasting". It would be far better if people simply shared their views on more courses so that we can get a decent sampling, e.g, a solid 10-20 courses.

Maybe when we reach that point people can go back and question individual assessments, but to my mind it would be more interesting to see a broad perspective.

How about JakaB on Victoria National? Jim Lewis on Forrest Creek? Someone on the World Worlds courses? Tommy - stepping up again and doing Pelican Hill? Etc.

[Tim_Weiman]

Cos:

I suspect there will be little disagreement on Fazio building golf courses on non traditional sites.

Can you take one of those you have played and go through the entire exercise?

[A.G._Crockett]

Part of me would like to take a shot at this for Finley GC at UNC, but first a question.  What exactly do you guys take the meaning of "instant gratification" to be in this context?  To make this more concrete, use an example if possible of a hole/feature/design/architect that does instantly gratify and one that does not.
Thanks in advance.

[Jeff_Brauer]

AG -

I would take it to mean seeing the result of every shot immediately - seeing it land, seeing it roll or trickle and seeing it stop from where you hit your shot.

It might also mean seeing the entire hole in one view so you understand it and its beauty and it is pleasing to the senses.

It probably also means that the hole doesn't confuse you as to what to hit, so you don't feel uncomfortable.

BTW, for my money, none of these things is necessarily bad!  I believe that MacKenzie, for example, strove for these things in the Golden Age, but only got them most of the time, because of earthmoving limitations, etc.  

This explains the occaisional blind pins, despite writing about eliminating them, as well as the occaisional quirky hole that Fazio says he would (and can, with his $8-25 Mil budgets) get rid of, and they (and for that matter, the Forrest Richardsons, Jeff Brauers and Neal Meagers, with their $2-4 Million budgets) couldn't.

Its hard to quantify, but quirk which is real, unavoidable quirk, as opposed to manufactured quirk for its own sake is desireable, but forced quirk is not.  Anyway, if I got Fazio budgets, much quirk would also be gone.

I don't know if you can generalize that he damns himself for simply explaining a design philosophy that many from now and the past espouse, but which he has tried to carry to new levels.  There are many perspectives on golf design.

Its hard to generalize that he puts golf on sites that are not traditionally considered good for golf.  He has built on some great sites, some average ones, and probably a few poor ones, like all architects.

Also wonder about why anyone worries about who among his associates does the work.  Do you worry about which Doak associate does the work in New Zealand while Tom is away?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Lets just say, I have never been on a single golf hole that Fazio ever built where he wasn't trying to force a certain "wowness" on you. I think thats what David, err... Fazio is meaning by instant gratification.

Tom, I agree with Tim, you set yourself on the defensive almost immediately, and that really doesn't add much other then your a wuss for confrontation. I think JakaB would agree. (A JOKE Tom)

Saddam Creek, I'll maybe try that one later, only after Pelican Hill.

[Tim_Weiman]

AG Crockett:

#17 at Sand Ridge is an example of instant visual gratification. It is par three set up to get a beautiful view of the wetlands, a delightful place, especially in the fall.I saw several alternative routing plans and this hole found its way into every one.

The antithesis is #6 on the Old Course at Ballybunion, a relatively short par 4. You stand on the tee looking out over a barely defined fairway and a trailer park in the background. From many places where you might make your approach shot, you really can't the green very well. There isn't a bunker anywhere on the hole to give you any clue as to where to hit your shot. But, over the years you fall in love with how tricky the hole plays, both the tee shot and the shot approach pitch. It's a little devil that takes time to reveal itself.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy,

Here I was trying not to sling arrows and you had to fire a couple off!

David started a really good thread. It's a challenge to discuss Fazio. I hope we can get many ppeople to go through different Fazio courses point by point and then try to figure out what it tells us, if anything.

How about Mike Cirba on Pine Hill?

Or Redanman on some other course not covered?

[Mike_Cirba]

By Request....Pine Hill


--  Fazio often builds courses on sites unsuitable for golf, by traditional standards.  False
--  Fazio often disregards the natural landscape/setting if the natural landscape/setting doesnt suit his design preferences. Partly True
--  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. True
--  Fazio aims to instantly gratify the golfer. True, and flatter them as well, at times.
--  Fazio courses prefer downhill and avoid uphill par 3s.  TRUE
--  Fazio courses tend to contain misses, especially those on the right side of the golf holes.  Partly True
--  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. TRUE
--  Fazio courses tend toward elevated, dramatic tees. TRUE
--  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.  TRUE
--  Fazio courses arent much concerned for creating strategic, risk/reward options for the golfer. Partially true.  
--  Fazio courses tend to inform the golfer of the proper avenue of play, rather than confounding the golfer with multiple avenues and multiple choices.  VERY TRUE

I'd like to do the same exercise with Galloway National, which I think is a great course, but let me think about that one.

[ACR]

I would also be interested in this analysis for #8 at Pinehurst.  I do not remember is well enough to make an attempt, but it certainly seems a little different than the standard Fazio course.

[A.G._Crockett]

O.K., I'll take a shot at Finley GC at UNC.  It is an unusual case, I think, in that it is on the site of an existing course, but is not a renovation.  In fact, with a very few exceptions early and late in each nine, you can't be sure exactly where you are in terms of the old course.  It is also the place that got me intensely interested in the subject of GCA in the first place, as I contemplated the changes wrought by TF on the old Finley GC.

1. Sites unsuitable for golf.  FALSE, since it already was a course, though by no means one of the better sites in the Triangle area.

2. Disregarding natural landscape/setting if it doesn't suit design preferences.  PROBABLY FALSE at this site; nothing seems to be radically out of place in terms of the landscape here.

3. Design for "wow" factor.  TRUE.  The course is built to be much more dramatic in terms of visual appearance or in photographs than either its predecessor on the same site or most other courses in the area.

4. Instant gratification.  TRUE. I can't think of a blind tee shot on the course, and only the 16th green could be considered elevated enough to eliminate seeing the ball land.  There are some pin positions in which a high bunker lip might accomplish hiding the ball on the green, but not many.  As to "quirk", I can't think of any on the course.

5. Preference for downhill par 3's.  TRUE.

6. Misses are contained, especially on the right side.  LESS TRUE on this course than any other Fazio course that I have played, and I'm not sure why, unless it was to make the course more challenging as a competition site for the UNC teams and/or other tournament play.

7. Framing/vertical containment.  TRUE, though with less mounding and banking than I have seen elsewhere. (See #6 above.)

8. Dramatic, elevated tees.  TRUE, though the front nine is on a very flat piece of land, and it is less true there.  Very much so on most of the back nine.

9. Minimization of hazards in line of play.  TRUE.  If you are hitting the ball well, it is possible to play this course without encountering any real trouble at all, and there is no "quirk."

10. Not much concern for risk/reward options.  TRUE.  I can think of two par fours where there is a decision to be made as to how much of the dogleg to take, with the possibility of driving through the fairway, but that's about it.

11.  Golfer is informed instead of confounded. VERY TRUE. No mysteries on the first trip to the course, and no mysteries any time thereafter.

[Ken_Cotner]

Hopefully Jim Lewis will chime in regarding Forest Creek, but until then here is my take on it (after a grand total of one round):

--  Fazio often builds courses on sites unsuitable for golf, by traditional standards.  FALSE
--  Fazio often disregards the natural landscape/setting if the natural landscape/setting doesnt suit his design preferences. APPEARS TO BE FALSE
--  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. MOSTLY FALSE (THE TIEBREAKER HOLE IS AN EXCEPTION)
--  Fazio aims to instantly gratify the golfer. NOT SURE HOW THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN PREVIOUS QUESTION.
--  Fazio courses prefer downhill and avoid uphill par 3s.  FALSE.  10 SEEMS TO BE UPHILL
--  Fazio courses tend to contain misses, especially those on the right side of the golf holes.  RANDOM
--  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. TRUE
--  Fazio courses tend toward elevated, dramatic tees. FALSE
--  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.  DEFINITELY FALSE.  ONE OF THE FUN FEATURES OF THIS COURSE
--  Fazio courses arent much concerned for creating strategic, risk/reward options for the golfer. FALSE -- SEE PRIOR QUESTION.
--  Fazio courses tend to inform the golfer of the proper avenue of play, rather than confounding the golfer with multiple avenues and multiple choices.  FALSE

Looking forward to Jim's comments...

Ken

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim, I hope everyone has a sense of humor to understand that my poor attempts at humor are just that.

SHADOW CREEK!