[Tim Martin]

It's interesting: maybe because he wrote the Confidential Guide, Tom D rarely gets described as a nice guy. But I think he is. As his post here confirms (yet again), he limits himself to critiquing and rating *golf courses* -- not golf architects. That's partly, I assume, because he realizes that many factors, some outside the architect's control, are involved in determining what's ultimately on the ground -- and so he judges *that* instead of people's talent or motives. But I do wonder why so few well travelled golfers can't/won't come out and simply rate the (living/current) architects *as* architects. It's as if we all listed our 10 best books while making no claims whatsoever about our 10 best writers. Not that I would necessarily take your pick as definitive or true/factual -- but I still think it of value/interest to read a direct and forthright post on your *best architects* instead of the usual meta-level and stylistic-type analysis of courses. I have to assume that well-travelled, well-read and experienced posters know/think they know which architects do their jobs best. It would be good to read those views, unfettered by all manner of qualifiers and caveats.

Peter-I am going to take the flip side and say that if you extract courses from The Confidential Guide by architect(for argument sake take 5 Doak and 5 Tom Fazio) the architects are in fact being critiqued against each other by employing the Doak Scale. This isn't a knock against Tom but rather another way to analyze the data.

[A.G._Crockett]

Ally,


I was not dissing anyone's opinion I was just pointing out the fact that if the problem really was that all Fazio's bunkers were too deep then how come TOC is such a course where you can rarely use more than a wedge out of the fairway bunkers but is also held up as a GCA masterpiece?  AG's assertion of 'avoiding all fairway bunkers at all costs' as being bad GCA is therefore serious flawed when looking at it in relation to TOC where this is exactly the correct strategy. That I challenged this is IMO what this group is all about and should you not agree with my conclusions then please do suggest why and what in your opinion is the correct answer.


I would suggest the real problem AG has with Fazio's bunkers is they are too severe for the lack of easy options to avoid them. If I have 40 yards left and right of the bunker then I can have no quibbles about it being severe in nature. If however I have only 5 yards either side it would be OTT to have a severe hazard. The hazard should reflect the severity of its surroundings or sit in context with the situation. I agree there should be variety with the hazards though am not sure if this is what you mean by 'a mix of penalties'.


Jon

Jon,
You are incorrect in your assessment of what I have written.  I do not have the energy to explain further, so I'll leave it with what I wrote.  I don't know how many Fazio courses you've played, so if you want to just take the case of Pinehurst #4, where Gil Hanse has removed ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY Fazio bunkers from a Ross design and compare that to TOC, where there are 112 TOTAL bunkers, it might be instructive. 

I play weekly at a another fairly typical Fazio course; there are NINE holes in which a fairway bunker is a full shot penalty, and each of the nine bunkers is bigger than any bunker at TOC.  Subtract the four par 3's from 18, and you're talking about a pretty high percentage.  FWIW, there are four other holes where a fairway bunker is a half-shot penalty; there is ONE par 4 or 5 on the golf course without fairway bunkering in play.  If that strikes you as good design, rather than repetitive design, we'll just have to disagree on that.

I don't think Fazio's work at Pinehurst #4 is atypical of his designs at all; you are welcome to disagree. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Not going to comment on the work of the names highlighted but as to bunkers, they're supposed to be a hazard, they should be difficult to get the ball out of. Avoid them or take the consequences.
atb

Thomas,
The nature and quality of bunkers isn't in question, nor is the strategy of avoiding bunkers.  The repetitive nature of design is the question that I was addressing.  That wouldn't be different if there were NO bunkers, or water on every hole, or OB on every hole.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - yes, I agree: that is indeed one way to analyze the data, especially because what's not/rarely outlined in the CG entries is factors like the quality of the original site, and so what's left to evaluate is basically the existing course and the architect who designed it. But my theory/speculation, based in part on his many posts here, is that the exclusion of other factors is part of TD's basic and fundamental approach, i.e. a way of saying: 'I don't know what the site was or the restrictions or the client brief or even the architect's talent level....so all I'm going to slag/praise is the golf course itself".  But since I'd be interested in an insider's/experienced golfer's perspective on who the most *skilled* architects actually are, I do find myself thinking: 'well, if an architect has 10 course reviewed and the average score is a "6", does that mean that the architect is a "6"'?

[Tim Martin]

Tim - yes, I agree: that is indeed one way to analyze the data, especially because what's not/rarely outlined in the CG entries is factors like the quality of the original site, and so what's left to evaluate is basically the existing course and the architect who designed it. But my theory/speculation, based in part on his many posts here, is that the exclusion of other factors is part of TD's basic and fundamental approach, i.e. a way of saying: 'I don't know what the site was or the restrictions or the client brief or even the architect's talent level....so all I'm going to slag/praise is the golf course itself".  But since I'd be interested in an insider's/experienced golfer's perspective on who the most *skilled* architects actually are, I do find myself thinking: 'well, if an architect has 10 course reviewed and the average score is a "6", does that mean that the architect is a "6"'?

Peter-The model for the Doak Scale is interesting in that a "6" is a significantly higher score than many other ratings that employ a one through ten scale. While I look forward to playing a 6 on the Doak Scale I don't have quite the level of anticipation for an Italian restaurant that gets a six out of ten rating.

[Jeff_Brauer]

......  AG's assertion of 'avoiding all fairway bunkers at all costs' as being bad GCA is therefore serious flawed when looking at it in relation to TOC where this is exactly the correct strategy......


I would suggest the real problem AG has with Fazio's bunkers is they are too severe for the lack of easy options to avoid them. If I have 40 yards left and right of the bunker then I can have no quibbles about it being severe in nature. If however I have only 5 yards either side it would be OTT to have a severe hazard. The hazard should reflect the severity of its surroundings or sit in context with the situation. I agree there should be variety with the hazards though am not sure if this is what you mean by 'a mix of penalties'.


Jon

Just a few thoughts, first, I agree with your second paragraph, yes there should be hazard variety, it should be in context for the hole, more width allows harder hazard, etc.  Like it or not, these kinds of thoughts go back to the basic proportionality theory of architecture, which still prevails to a large degree.


As to TOC, it is not universally loved, although it is revered for its history.  We have had 600 years to think about architecture, and yet, it got so much right that is still philosophically correct today.  That said, it is not perfect.


By the Golden Age, archies decided strategy was not to avoid bunkers, it was to challenge them. Proportionally speaking, the more you wish players to challenge a bunker, the less severe you make it, no?  And, let's not forget the impact of changing from match to stroke play has had on architecture.  Say what you want, architecture to meet current challenges is more "sincere" than copying some old style just because.


As to the original body of work ?, I will say TD probably had the greatest run on sites ever, and he should cherish that the rest of his days.  TF and JN do suffer somewhat by virtue of being so popular, they did cash in and do so many residential courses, which fit their niches very well, but were in fact limited by the vary nature of the basic needs of their projects.


They say you get the projects you sell.  TD and CC and did turn down less than exciting projects to keep their overall portfolios well above most architects in terms of quality over quantity. Kudos on that, while JN and TF mostly took the residential projects that their names benefitted and allowed charging higher fees. 


But the fact remains, there was and is a need for muni's designed to be fairly easy and not hard to maintain.  There are needs for residential courses to allow quick play to reduce travel time (probably about 500 to 1 over destination resorts) and TF refined that type of golf course to perhaps its ultimate form, no?

[Sean_A]

Tim - yes, I agree: that is indeed one way to analyze the data, especially because what's not/rarely outlined in the CG entries is factors like the quality of the original site, and so what's left to evaluate is basically the existing course and the architect who designed it. But my theory/speculation, based in part on his many posts here, is that the exclusion of other factors is part of TD's basic and fundamental approach, i.e. a way of saying: 'I don't know what the site was or the restrictions or the client brief or even the architect's talent level....so all I'm going to slag/praise is the golf course itself".  But since I'd be interested in an insider's/experienced golfer's perspective on who the most *skilled* architects actually are, I do find myself thinking: 'well, if an architect has 10 course reviewed and the average score is a "6", does that mean that the architect is a "6"'?

Pietro

Your comments are perfect for figuring out best, worst, favourite or whatever courses, but not archies.  It may take an exceptionally skilled job to get a 5 out of a property, client and/or budget.  And it may take a slightly above average job to get a 7 out of a property, client and/or budget.  One of the aspects I admire most about Ross and Colt is that they did get into projects of less than desirable properties with less than ample budgets and still produced good work over a large percentage of their huge numbers of projects.  Sometimes, it is these less well known courses that offer a clearer idea of what these archies made because often times these are the projects that nobody bothered to alter much.   

For most, trying to figure out how good an archie is  is practically impossible because we don't know the ins and outs of projects. And for those that know or may figure it out, there is little reward for ranking archies.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

For clarity, let me say this: I find too many, and maybe the majority, of Fazio's fairway bunkers to be well-placed, but far too severe.  A good way for a good player to play a competitive round on a Fazio course is simply to decide to avoid fairway bunkers at ALL costs.  While avoiding a particular fairway bunker on a particular golf course might be something we agree on, avoiding ALL fairway bunkers because they are ALL full shot penalties is not something I consider to be good GCA.  Your mileage may vary...

AG,


going on what you actually wrote I would say my interpretation is pretty spot on though it might not be exactly what you intended to say. You could of course describe those elusive thoughts of yours so as to help better clarify if you could be bothered which would also be in the spirit of what this site is supposed to be about.


Jon

[Jon Wiggett]

Jeff,


yes, I would agree with what you wrote on the whole.


Jon

[Jeff Schley]

I appreciate all three architects for they stay true to their style.  C&C are minimalists using natural terrain for sure, Fazio loves to make impressive features and move huge amounts of dirt with sensational hazards, Tom is similar to C&C but I like his green complexes a tad more than C&C.

I like variety just as much as anyone and would not have any reservation playing any of the top 3 rated courses from each of the three.

Tom Doak
Cape Kidnappers
Tara Iti
Pacific Dunes

C&C
Sand Hills
Cabot Cliffs
Friar's Head

Tom Fazio
Wade Hampton
Shadow Creek
Alotian - yes in a cart!

Big variety in those 9.  Some seaside courses, some in the have forest and some in desolation (sand hills).  I appreciate all three styles and they try and execute to the best of their ability for the land and budget that was given.  That earns my respect.

[A.G._Crockett]

For clarity, let me say this: I find too many, and maybe the majority, of Fazio's fairway bunkers to be well-placed, but far too severe.  A good way for a good player to play a competitive round on a Fazio course is simply to decide to avoid fairway bunkers at ALL costs.  While avoiding a particular fairway bunker on a particular golf course might be something we agree on, avoiding ALL fairway bunkers because they are ALL full shot penalties is not something I consider to be good GCA.  Your mileage may vary...

AG,


going on what you actually wrote I would say my interpretation is pretty spot on though it might not be exactly what you intended to say. You could of course describe those elusive thoughts of yours so as to help better clarify if you could be bothered which would also be in the spirit of what this site is supposed to be about.


Jon

Jon,
Thanks for the input.  I only regret that I lack your writing skills.  I shall try to improve.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I appreciate all three architects for they stay true to their style. ......
.......That earns my respect.

I would respect them more for the times they stepped out of their style because the project suggested it or demanded it.  In other words, if form followed function, not predetermined style trumps all.

[Jeff Schley]

I appreciate all three architects for they stay true to their style. ......
.......That earns my respect.

I would respect them more for the times they stepped out of their style because the project suggested it or demanded it.  In other words, if form followed function, not predetermined style trumps all.

Jeff as we know the site determines much of what becomes the course, so I don't think they try and be all things to all golfers.  Don't believe, nor hinted that they do every course the same way, but do you not see a style with each?  When you think of Tom Doak what do you think of?  Fazio? C&C?   I have noted my brief impressions of their characteristic style and it wasn't meant to demean them in any way shape or form.  It was complimentary as one isn't better than the other.

[Jay Mickle]

Ross with over 400 courses to his credit had only small percentage of exceptional ones.  I don't believe that he ever intended to build a life's work of great courses. He built courses for the broad spectrum of golfers of the age.
I see Fazio in a similar light. While producing some fine courses he was also called upon to produce courses for residential communities, retirement villages etc. If the course meet the needs of the community that commissioned it shouldn't that be a separate rating catagory?
Perhaps Fazio's puffery about each project leads to dismissive attitudes about his work as whole.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,


I didn't think you were demeaning anyone.


Brad Klein went to MN to see my Quarry and Wilderness at FB and said if no one told him, he wouldn't believe they were by the same architect.  Nicest thing anyone ever said to me.  A local writer noticed my new project has some small, perfect circular greens and commented he had never seen me do those before.


I think as we age, we all give some consideration to not being typecast any more than naturally happens.  At least, I would like my 2010 courses to be distinguishable from my 1990 courses.  Maybe the "brand builders" like RTJ and TF don't mind the sameness, as it sells, but I would think most do.


Obviously, a certain style has worked for nearly all of us to one degree or another, so yes, we repeat styles.  But, I think every architect ought to have a few out of the box style breakers, and hopefully, those would be among their top 3 courses.  And, I think they do. TF has World Woods Pine Barrens course, styled as Pine Valley, and that would be my pick in his top 3.  Doak is a bit different at Common Ground.  JN has softened his overall style over time.


There have been a few industry whispers that CC are starting to repeat themselves, similar to the accusations against nearly every busy GCA ever.  Frankly, as much as I like variety, that would be a problem I would like to have had!

[Shelly Jones]

As a newbie, this is my first venture with an opinion!!


From my experience:


Fazio
Shadow Creek
Spring Hill


Doak
Pacific Dunes
Barnbougle Dunes
Ballyneal


Coore/Crenshaw
Sand Hills
Barnbougle Lost Farm
Cabot Cliffs


I agree that the shared vision of the developer/owner/members with the architect has a lot to do with the success of the design, coupled with budget.


I am a member of a Fazio course. Aesthetics have a lot to do with the success of a Fazio course with its members.

[John Kavanaugh]

Shelly,


Nice collection, now rank those courses based on views. Poor ole Fazio trails by a huge margin.

[Kalen Braley]

From the viewpoint of percentage of courses built that are highly esteemed/thought of/ranked...


I would guess Doak's and C&C's ratio is higher than Fazios.


Perhaps its a quantity vs quality thing...

[John Kavanaugh]

Check out percentage of courses that have failed.

[Tim Gallant]

Proportionally speaking, the more you wish players to challenge a bunker, the less severe you make it, no? 

Jeff,


I played around with this in my mind. I think the logic has to do with the balance of the risk vs. the reward. The architect can just as easily make the advantage of being close to the hazard so great that the risk is worth it's weight.


I'm reminded of Tom Doak's assessment of the 12th at North Berwick (before more bunkers were added). Im paraphrasing but he said something along the lines of: it was advantageous to be on the left and challenge the bunker because the route into the green was far superior to the other side of the fairway. The bunker was a shot penalty for sure (no hope of getting it to the green). So it wasn't that players challenged the bunker because it was less severe, they challenged the bunker because the reward outweighed the risk. That is, until they landed in that bunker and experienced the penalty. Then they would shy away from it for a time, until the lure of the angle outweighed the risk again.
[/size]Therefore, I don't think that players look at a hazard and think 'the penalty isn't too severe. I'm going to challenge it'. I think they ask 'am I prepared to for the consequences if I don't pull this off?' If the answer is yes, then it doesn't matter how big and bad the hazard is. As has been said though, I agree that the answer may not, or possibly even should not be so obvious. Having variety of both hazard difficulty, and strategic merit will likely yield interesting golf.

[Jim Nugent]

Check out percentage of courses that have failed.

John, suppose you are building a course, finances are not an issue, and you want the best course possible.  You get to decide what 'best' means, so long as it relates to the course, not how popular it is or how many members it gets. 

Which of the three do you choose?   

[John Kavanaugh]

Tiger Bernhardt had that very choice. Real work, real money. He chose Art Hills.

[John Kavanaugh]

Funny, I was a member of a Doak, a Fazio and a C&C renovation at the same time. Now how that ended is a story. Sadly not for public consumption.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Proportionally speaking, the more you wish players to challenge a bunker, the less severe you make it, no? 

Jeff,


I played around with this in my mind. I think the logic has to do with the balance of the risk vs. the reward. The architect can just as easily make the advantage of being close to the hazard so great that the risk is worth it's weight.


I'm reminded of Tom Doak's assessment of the 12th at North Berwick (before more bunkers were added). Im paraphrasing but he said something along the lines of: it was advantageous to be on the left and challenge the bunker because the route into the green was far superior to the other side of the fairway. The bunker was a shot penalty for sure (no hope of getting it to the green). So it wasn't that players challenged the bunker because it was less severe, they challenged the bunker because the reward outweighed the risk. That is, until they landed in that bunker and experienced the penalty. Then they would shy away from it for a time, until the lure of the angle outweighed the risk again.
Therefore, I don't think that players look at a hazard and think 'the penalty isn't too severe. I'm going to challenge it'. I think they ask 'am I prepared to for the consequences if I don't pull this off?' If the answer is yes, then it doesn't matter how big and bad the hazard is. As has been said though, I agree that the answer may not, or possibly even should not be so obvious. Having variety of both hazard difficulty, and strategic merit will likely yield interesting golf.

Tim,

Most good players I know weigh the consequences in terms of "Am I going to recover 2 out of 3 times" in making that decision.  If it isn't close to a 2 to 1 ratio for success, they don't do it, because somewhere down the line, they need to make two birdies to offset the bogey.

 It doesn't really matter how great the advantage is on

par 4 holes, where the most strokes you can gain with a better angle advantage is one, and statistically probably an average of the old half stroke advantage.  So, I would think there would be far less tendency to take a risk, unless you happened to be playing the driver very well that day.

On par 5's it is two (barring hole outs on either hole type)  strokes to be gained, so I tend to make fairway bunkers on a par 5 deeper, since even with limited forward movement, a player can still reach a green in regulation three shots.   Basically, unless the golfer thinks he is entitled to a 4 on a par 5, there is no risk of going above par, and the possibility of gaining two strokes and the math says go for it (on bunkers, water and OB complicate the math)

And, for that matter, no one ever empirically proved the entire risk reward concept.  In general, you would logically challenge a hazard with an iron rather than a driver, because the tendency to miss is a lot less pronounced for most players (granted, we are all different, and for that matter, each of us is different on different days and even hours or holes, LOL)

Now, that math is probably different on holes 15-18 when behind in a match, so place in round also affects how I design.  Your take would definitely be closer to the golfers thought process, at least based on my experience of asking good players a lot of really nosy questions.......      


Of course, that is just how I think about it.  When you factor in you might be trying to build a bunker that "theoretically" should be 4 ft deep into a 10 foot hill, something has to give, and it looks too unnatural to build the base of the bunker up to some predetermined height, so its all guidelines I initially think about.  Rarely works out exactly as theorized.

[Tom_Doak]

Check out percentage of courses that have failed.

Well, you have to be willing to work for an owner who might fail.  Some guys are interested in great sites, some are interested in deep pockets.  We would all love to have both, of course.  But it's the jobs you choose to take or pass on that ultimately define you.


A fairly high % of Tom Weiskopf's projects have failed or struggled.  I don't think that has much to do with the designs; it's more about that he took the jobs that Nicklaus passed over, or where the client didn't have the $$$ to sign Jack.  And then his project in the same town would hit the market a couple of years later than Jack's, so it was more vulnerable.


I do know Tom Fazio when he was very young was the foreman for his uncle on a job where he had to tell the construction crew there was no money to pay them one week.  I think that probably had a lot to do with his sales pitch of "if you have to ask, you can't afford us".  But so many of those projects were compromised by development considerations!  Like Donald Ross, Bill and Ben and I have been very lucky to work for clients whose first priority was golf.  It's sad how often that is not the case.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()