[Matt_Ward]

I have not played Gozzer Ranch, Shooting Star or Mountaintop -- three of TF's highely rated courses in the latest GW poll.

I have played 75+ of his other courses and I am amazed at how his level of design is starting to push ahead.

I'd be curious to hear from those who have played either or both layouts and lay out why they are so good when held against
some of his other designs -- such as Martis Camp and a host of others.

Also, have to wonder -- given what others have said -- where is The Alotian Club ?

[Mac Plumart]

Matt...

I agree.  We need some posts from people who've played those courses.  They've caught my eye and the list is compelling me to go check them out. 

[Matt_Ward]

Mac:

Fazio has 20+ courses in the top 100 modern.

Quite impressive -- but with the quick ascention of Gozzer Ranch, Mountaintop and Shooting Star he has started to gain entry to the really high courses -- no doubt he also has Shadow Creek and Wade Hampton in the mix too.

How did The Aloitian escape view ?

Possiblly not enough raters ?

I think the guy gets panned too many times on GCA -- just my own view from the ones I have played -- his overall batting average is not remotely close to a Doak or C&C but there's more juice in his tank than many concede.

[John Shimp]

I've only played mountiantop. It's got some fine holes but all in all is nothing special.  Great vistas, conditioning, and service as it's a discovery land club but the golf is disjointed and there are a lot of weak holes.  I think raters likely got fooled by the service experience.  Fazio has a lot of good courses in NC.  Eagle point and forest creek south are much better.  For mountain golf I like brights creek better but haven't played wade Hampton. Diamond creek is also much better and is real connected in style. A great walk, compact, terrific greens, etc.  Mountaintop is really a cart course also. You could walk I guess but it's not a good walk.  23 modern is really odd.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I will agree with you that while most architects get to the peak of the business and tend to get repetitive after that, Tom Fazio has managed to stay on top of his game much longer than most.

However, as long as an architect is considered to be at the top of the business, his newest courses almost always generate buzz as some of his best work ever.  You were likely saying the same things 10-15 years ago about Fazio's newest courses at that time, as you do now about Gozzer Ranch, etc.

I have seen very little of Fazio's most recent work -- the second course at Pronghorn is probably the newest I've seen.  From seeing that one and from looking at the pictures of those you mentioned, it is clear that his team has gotten better at building cool bunkers, which I attribute to one or two young associates who nobody has heard of.  Aside from that, I'm curious where you think the improvement is coming from:

Are the routings better somehow?  Is he more (or less) focused on walkability than he used to be?
 
Is there more diverse strategy to the holes?

Are his greens getting more interesting or more edgy?  This is where his courses never quite reached the highest rung for me:  the greens seldom have enough sizzle to make you put the ball in position for an approach shot.  [Interestingly, though, I've played a few Fazio courses from earlier in his career where the greens were really severe, to the point of generating some complaints; I think he backed off on green contour after getting flak about some of those.]

Is he spending more time on sites now that most of his kids are grown up?

And/or, is he getting more dramatic sites to work with?


I always wonder how much an architect really does change his ideas over time.  I think I've gotten better at making decisions over the years, but I really haven't changed my philosophy of design significantly, and I don't think I've devoted any more or any less time and enthusiasm to what I do.  Most of the differences between my courses can be put down to (1) the sites.  Most of the rest can be put down to (2) what the clients wanted  or (3) the associates' and shapers' input.  But only the last of those could be considered to form a trend, and even that trend is attributable to other people, not to the lead architect.

[Brad Klein]

Alotian Club has been hard for our raters to get onto for whatever reasons. Simply not enough votes.

I agree, the quality and diversity of Tom Fazio's work the last five years has been remarkable. You'd be hard pressed to see someone of an equally big reputation whose style has evolved and diversified as much in the last decade while still remaining sensible, interesting and playable. No doubt it's in part because he had so many design associates who had latitude, but also because Fazio has been smart enough to respond to different sites and to different clients rather than force an imprint upon them.

In the last few years it's clear to me that you'll have a hard time finding cookie cutter boiler plate templates in use at such diverse settings where he's worked as Pronghorn (Ore.), Gozzer Ranch (Id.), Mountaintop (N.C.) and Corales (D.R.).

[Tom_Doak]

My understanding is that Alotian Club has a policy of asking guests NOT to rate the course for any publication.  At least, that's one well-traveled panelist told me they asked him.

[Brad Klein]

How would they know if guests do rate it?

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

In regards to comparing you to Tom Fazio, I wonder if there is a comparison to be made at all.  You are a minamalist, you use the natural landscapes to dictate routing and hole concepts.  Fazio is, essentially, the anti-thesis of that.  We can stereotype with Shadow Creek as an example, but we can also use the words he wrote in his book "Golf Course Designs", "When designing a golf course in severe, mountain terrain, I think of building the flattest possible course."

You also touch on a view things in your post that have always puzzled me on Fazio's courses, in general, specifically his routings.  He seems to favor creating a series of golf holes rather than a seemlessly flowing golf course routed across natural occuring landscapes and landforms.  This results in long green to tee transitions, which might be considered ideal for cart riding rather than walking.  But again, these are generalizations.

Which frankly, when combined with this new list, makes me want to go check out a few of these "new" courses.  Maybe he's taken it to the next level.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Just a small correction -- I have no comment on Gozzer Ranch and therefore I am only asking others what makes it so spceial along with the likes of Mountaintop and Shooting Star.

I ask because a place like The Alotian Club, which a number of people really like, is not even in the top 100 modern. There are also other layouts I have played from TF's portfolio which I think are very good have not been even rated in such elite company -- Glenwild in Park City being one of them.

I'd have to say that TF seems to be more open to having such different inputs involved with the design process -- I agree with BK's point that the sites of his courses have been rather special -- and with the input received the nature of his holes and what they represent is beyond the cookie-cutter stuff that seems to be the standard operating procedure for so long. Frankly, I see a place like the original 18 at Black Diamond and wonder what was all the fuss about. He's done far better work in plenty of places and often times the so-called "raters" are locked into a time warp on what he is doing now.

In regards to the walkabaility component -- I have notice a bit more restraint on that front but clearly TF is called upon to move the meter in terms of stretching things a good bit more than you do so carts and their usage are still part and parcel of what he does.

I do think the routings and overall hole quality are far better -- in terms of consistency of presentation and also in terms of being not so easily discerned by simply playing the hole one time and everything being quite e-z to understand. There's a certain amount of depth to the holes -- patterns are more easily hidden and with that the player(s) have to engage the brain a good bit much more. In years past -- I would see a TF hole and be amazed at its presentation but often times it was quite automatic on what was needed and frankly the individual holes would be nothing more than a singularity onto itself - rather than being connected to provide a real journey for the 18-holes.

I do see a few of his sites that have been really top shelf things. Martis Camp in the Tahoe area is extremely well done -- plenty of movement with the property and while the essence of the property is to sell homes -- it appears that the golf dimension is not in any shape or form -- just a set decoration to the McMansions that scatter around the property.

Tom, his green dimensions and contours -- are also anything but repetitive. It appears he is quite at ease in taking chances when the opportunities present themselves and his overall hole product and pacing is now quite varied and at times very sophisticated so that quick responses to what is needed can be more than just an automatic decision for the player.

The issue for me is that places like Shadow Creek and Wade Hampton do not really serve TF well in sizing up what he is been doing int he last ten years. They reflect the old TF and how it was often the big splash but empty strategic calculations for courses. SC for me is about how it was built and the Steve Wynn bravado -- WH is more or less a pastoral beautiful picture of the area in which the course is situated. Neither has for me anything of real long term consequence to be mentioned in the same breath as his more recent efforts. They are fine courses and likely would still be rated for me among a top 100 modern but much further down the food chain.

I'd be curious to the comments of others and frankly it kind of disappoints me that Alotian Club wants to muzzle people. The reviews from Jim F and Andy T have been quite glowing.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Some interesting bigger picture questions from TD regarding whether gca's change their views over time. I think his initial take is a bit cynical! 

I do think most change their views over time.  How can you not, after getting golfer and client input or personal input from playing your courses (and courses of others, contemporary and classic) if you are still passionate about gca and thinking about it?

I know I have in many ways.  I know it started my last few years at KN, when I began to think, at least Killian just wasn't really thinking about design as much as he should.  I read about Donald Ross and grass hollows, and he said "we don't do those" to which I replied, "why not?"

Early in my own biz, working with Colbert, Nelson, etc. exposed me to a way of thinking about gca that I hadn't encountered.  As time went on, little things got me to wondering.   A specific example - when preparing prelim budgets for Colbert Hills, Fazio was doing Flint Hills. When I proposed 125K SF of bunkers, the contractor pointed out that "the great Fazio" only needed 100K in his budget for bunker square footage.  So I ask myself, why is this? 

I concluded that I (along with many, many other gca) were overscaling our bunkers.  Part of what worked for Fazio was that his average bunker size was much smaller than his greens, and its true.  Look at either of the Jones boys, and I think we can boil down complaints about their work to the simple fact that their bunkers tend to be too large in scale.

That continual questioning is why I started writing for Cybergolf and other publications - to force myself to really, really, think about what I'm doing out there.  (TD is obviously very good at putting his thoughts in writing, too)

Anyway, I suspect most gca's study the craft continuously and it shows when you do, and when you don't.  Back on topic, if Fazio mailed it in as many suspect on this site, we wouldn't see the differences in design that we are seeing.  Yes, it may be the same wisdom that TD and others have had to let eager young associates have more say.  Or, as he ages, maybe he is thinking, "wow, only a few more courses before I retire, better really take advantage of the opportunity".

BTW, I think Art Hills has also really ramped up his work in the last ten years.  Believe me, all of us look around at what others are doing, and realize that we just can't keep doing the same old, same old, and expect to remain competitive.

[BCrosby]

I have played Mtn Top a couple of times. It is a "sensible, playable" course, to paraphrase Brad. The front nine takes you gently downhill to a small lake, around which several holes are wrapped. The back nine takes you gently back uphill to the clubhouse. Some spectacular mountain views on the last several holes. All very beautiful and of a piece with the Fazio m.o. -  attention to the aesthetic details. By that I mean that areas around cart paths are as impressively groomed as green surrounds. The attention to landscaping details is wall-to-wall. I suppose that is what unlimited capital budgets allow you to do. Fazio meant what he said in his book about 'framing'. There are no cracks on the canvas. He has mastered the art like no other architect and it has made him a market leader.

From a wider historical sweep, I actually prefer Fazio's older Wade Hampton, a couple of miles away. I've always thought WH was rated too highly, but it's edgier than MT and for that reason a more interesting course. Another older Fazio I like better (again, because it's edgier) is The Stock Farm.

About ten years ago Fazio redid the Marshside nine at Sea Island. His work there was terrific, a real improvement on the old George Cobb nine. On a very windy site, the remodeled course has some wonderful contouring, especially around greens, much of it in lieu of Cobb's more traditional bunkering schemes. My thought at the time was that Fazio had turned some sort of corner.

And perhaps he has, but I didn't see it at MT.  

Bob        

[Adam_Messix]

Matt W--

Have you played Shadow Creek since the renovation of three years ago? 


Bob C--

What's amazing about Mountaintop is that when you're on 9 and you get a chance to peek up at where 17 is (and 18 is above that), you have to wonder how on earth you're going to get there because it's so much above you.  Yet, it's incredibly playable and there isn't a severely uphill hole in the bunch. 

[BCrosby]

Adam -

... or even a severely downhill hole on the course. It's an amazing piece of property nestled among high mountain ridges.

Bob  

[Adam_Messix]

Bob--

The only severely downhill shot at Mountaintop is the opening tee shot, which given it's not a very long hole anyway can be played with an iron or fairway wood and a shortish iron.  Getting that golf course in was an amazing achievement and it turned out excellent. 

[Mike_Young]

Tom...

In regards to comparing you to Tom Fazio, I wonder if there is a comparison to be made at all.  You are a minamalist, you use the natural landscapes to dictate routing and hole concepts.  Fazio is, essentially, the anti-thesis of that.  We can stereotype with Shadow Creek as an example, but we can also use the words he wrote in his book "Golf Course Designs", "When designing a golf course in severe, mountain terrain, I think of building the flattest possible course."

You also touch on a view things in your post that have always puzzled me on Fazio's courses, in general, specifically his routings.  He seems to favor creating a series of golf holes rather than a seemlessly flowing golf course routed across natural occuring landscapes and landforms.  This results in long green to tee transitions, which might be considered ideal for cart riding rather than walking.  But again, these are generalizations.

Which frankly, when combined with this new list, makes me want to go check out a few of these "new" courses.  Maybe he's taken it to the next level.

Mac,
I think when one is to compare an architect with another architect one would have to consider initial construction cost, maintenance cost and then the ablitiy of the course to have a positive NOI.....  I like much of TF work as I also like the work of a few of the other signatures such as RJ, JN and others....and I enjoy playing them....but seems that always while playing them I am amazed at the $$$$ spent....just like Mountain Top....the fairway construction and the overall maintenance are impressive....   it goes to show one can build anywhere if the money is there....and it is a very nice project....firstclass all the way....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom...

In regards to comparing you to Tom Fazio, I wonder if there is a comparison to be made at all.  You are a minamalist, you use the natural landscapes to dictate routing and hole concepts.  Fazio is, essentially, the anti-thesis of that.  We can stereotype with Shadow Creek as an example, but we can also use the words he wrote in his book "Golf Course Designs", "When designing a golf course in severe, mountain terrain, I think of building the flattest possible course."

You also touch on a view things in your post that have always puzzled me on Fazio's courses, in general, specifically his routings.  He seems to favor creating a series of golf holes rather than a seemlessly flowing golf course routed across natural occuring landscapes and landforms.  This results in long green to tee transitions, which might be considered ideal for cart riding rather than walking.  But again, these are generalizations.

Which frankly, when combined with this new list, makes me want to go check out a few of these "new" courses.  Maybe he's taken it to the next level.

Mac,
I think when one is to compare an architect with another architect one would have to consider initial construction cost, maintenance cost and then the ablitiy of the course to have a positive NOI.....  I like much of TF work as I also like the work of a few of the other signatures such as RJ, JN and others....and I enjoy playing them....but seems that always while playing them I am amazed at the $$$$ spent....just like Mountain Top....the fairway construction and the overall maintenance are impressive....   it goes to show one can build anywhere if the money is there....and it is a very nice project....firstclass all the way....

Really answering Mac here, but you may be making too much of that particular quote.  A ball will continuously roll on (and eventually off) a fairway at any slope over (depending on turf type and height of cut) 5-9%, with 6-7% being average max cross slope on a fw.  It will roll off whether Fazio or Doak designs it! 

Any gca who gets a mountain project better be thinking in terms of flattening the fw to those kind of grades.  As noted in one post above, Fazio has done a great job on his mountain course routings to use the land, make the holes connect, and make it playable.  How anyone would bash Faz for his mountain courses based on one quote from his book rather than actual results - which are generally great - is beyond me.

Now, that said, I could (but won't) name a few Fazio courses I know of where the routings were done pretty quickly, knowing the client was in a hurry to start and that they could "fix it" with earthmoving, if required.  They still used most of the natural features, though.  But, no doubt that on an "average" site, Faz thinks in terms of elevating it to a better site with earthmoving, landscaping, and the like.  Not that there is anything wrong with that, given Faz's typical real estate clients.

[Mac Plumart]

Jeff...

I don't know if you are saying this or not, but just in case I feel compelled to say this regardless:  I am not bashing Fazio.  In fact, I've played a decent number of his courses and never been horrified by his work.  In fact, I've really liked quite a few of them.  Additionally, I am going to make the effort to see a good number of his courses that popped up on this list this year, God-willing.

In regards to that quote (and I could probably pull more out of that book that illustrates the same point), he is not a minamlist.  I believe that is an absolute fact.  I think Mike Young's post really touches on that, or at least alludes to it. 

And that is one thing that I am really interested in discussing.  I did a thread on Max Behr and naturalism.  And I suppose that is when it dawned on me that minamilism and naturalism are not the same thing.  You could make a course look natural and adpot the naturalism badge of honor, but be very far from minimalism.  Are these high budget, non-minamalist courses sustainable?  I think relative to the actual minamalist courses, they are clearly not.  And that touches on Mike's idea of profit, returns, etc.  Anyway, maybe not for this thread...but regardless, it is something I can kicking around in my head.

[Adam Clayman]

Interesting perspectives. Thanks archies.

[Tom_Doak]

[Sigh.]

I was asking for specifics on what Mr. Fazio is doing differently, because I'd love to know.  And all I got back were generalities about minimalism, and comments like this:

"his green dimensions and contours -- are also anything but repetitive. It appears he is quite at ease in taking chances when the opportunities present themselves and his overall hole product and pacing is now quite varied and at times very sophisticated so that quick responses to what is needed can be more than just an automatic decision for the player."

Any examples of that -- a recent Fazio green that really caught your attention?

I'm not trying to be cynical, Jeff.  But I do wonder if anything philosophical has changed, or whether it's just smaller-scale, detail stuff. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mac,

I guess I wasn’t thinking you were bashing the Faz as much as the board in general.

I agree he is not a minimalist, but who cares?

As to whether high budget, non-minamalist courses are sustainable, do you mean environmentally or economically?  I don’t know that Fazio courses are environmentally unsound, compared to minimalism.  They use similar amounts of turf, water, etc.

Economically, I think Fazio courses are actually pretty easy to maintain, with long flowing slopes, etc. and would hold up pretty nicely in most cases if the maintenance levels were required to drop.

Granted, the construction debt on high budge courses needs to be retired, either via housing sales, pubic bonds (like his city of El Paso course) or bankruptcy, as is the case with most courses.  It sounds crass, but if the second and third owners, who are the ones who can make a profit in golf (or nearly any business for that matter) get the course at sustainable debt levels, does it matter if $2M or $20M has been written off by the first owner?

BTW, I would be interested to know how many closed Fazio courses are out there?  We do know that the star of minimalism, Mr. Doak, has had some closures recently on his minimalist courses.  Not bashing TD at all, because I have a few myself over the years, and have also noted many badly business model planned JN, AP and other courses close. Not sure I have recalled any TF closed but would love to hear.

As it happens, most closures, as I understand it, are actually lower end courses, not higher end or even upscale.  What happens is that the formerly high end get restructured to the middle, and when they start charging $45 instead of $64, they become a lot more popular and the former $45 courses start looking like they should charge $25 by comparison.

I am just wondering if there are any stats to back up your notion that a minimalist course is more likely to stay open?   Frankly, I doubt design style has much to do with it.

[Adam Clayman]

C'mon Jeff, there hasn't been a good Fazio bashing on this board for a very long time.

[Andy Troeger]

I think Fazio's newer stuff is excellent, but by all accounts some of his older stuff is excellent too--I haven't played Wade Hampton or Shadow Creek but they're obviously highly regarded. I haven't seen Mountaintop or Shooting Star, but Gozzer Ranch is the best Fazio I have seen (out of about 20). Its got more unique features--a split fairway hole that's almost drivable, a couple greens with everything cleared out behind to make it seem like a back pin is almost falling off a cliff, and a good mix of hole types and lengths. Fazio does aesthetics very well and with views of Lake Couer d'Alene. We did not walk it, but I think it would have been fairly do-able. It wouldn't be the easiest walk by any means, but most of the routing is fairly compact. Definitely closer to walkable than Black Rock.

The Alotian is very private--one of only two places that haven't allowed me to take photos. It's not a walkable routing, although the terrain has a lot to do with that. The holes themselves might be the most strategic set I've seen from Fazio, with good use of angles and wide fairways that allow for better playability.

And not mentioned so far but also high level is Victoria National. I walked that one and loved the routing and variety of holes--quite a few short ones mixed in with a really tough finishing stretch. The last two holes are a bit too similar, but they're good holes otherwise. I love the stretch of #14-16. It holds its own with the other two.

These three in my opinion are better than any of the other Fazio's I've seen because of better variety and unique holes and features that you don't see on his other courses. With a designer who has done as much courses as Fazio, you do feel like you see patterns and features, but he used the natural features of those three interesting properties in cool ways. I have good things to say about Karsten Creek, Dallas National, World Woods Pine Barrens, and a few others, but these three elevate themselves a bit higher to me.

[Mac Plumart]

Jeff...

On minimalism and sustainability, I don't know the answers.  I am asking questions.   Seems reasonable that they would be more sustainable.  But again, just asking as I am very interested.  

Who cares if $20 million gets written off, bankrupted on, and lost?!?  Really?  Owners, entrepeneurs, members, golfers in general.

Here is my interest and why I ask.  If wealthy big shot types want to build golf courses and lose their shirt everytime, this will eventually turn off big money guys from becoming interested in golf as a business.  Which should hurt the game.  Are there more effective ways to build courses, keep them profitable, affordable, and enjoyable to play.  So, maybe minimalism is the answer.  Maybe not...like I said I don't know.  Hence, the question.

Tom D...regarding Tom Fazio's new work.  There have been some pretty solid comments on this thread from Bob and Adam M.  Like I mentioned, I'll get out to see some of these courses and report back on what I see...for whatever that is worth.

Edit...Andy T. posted while I was typing...it looks like it might be a good one!

[Andy Troeger]

Here's a few photos I found

Gozzer's 8th, good par five with the carry bunker on the second shot. The bunker farther down on the left challenges going for the green in two. Solid hole.
http://www.worldgolf.com/photo-galleries/images/preview/33493.jpg

Not a very good photo, but shows the 15th. I do like how the area behind the green is cleared out to bring in the lake vista. Solid hole otherwise, but nothing that exciting strategically.
http://photonet1.hotpads.com/search/listingPhoto/ePropertySites/12357679331285104616/0001_555744988_medium.jpg

The Gozzer Ranch website has some good photos that rotate on the main page. One is the 11th, which is the one that falls off the cliff behind. Also pictures is the 16th, a short par five with a centerline bunker. You can't really tell from the photo, however, that the bunker is centerline.
http://www.gozzerranchclub.com/golf/

One more...there's a video on the site. You can see a guy teeing off on the short 12th the split fairway at about the 55 second mark, followed by the cool 7th built near some interesting rock ledges at 58 seconds.
http://www.gozzerranchclub.com/golf/video/

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()