News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Kelly_Blake_Moran

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #25 on: February 13, 2003, 12:36:07 PM »
Pat,

Let's put the burden on the archtect for a minute.  If an owner of such a course like Riviera brings this design commission to an architect, I think the architect has an obligation to say no to what seems to be reported here as a disfigurement of a golf hole.  And the architect has an obligation on this type of golf course to move it back to something close to a restoration, or maybe I should say a close resemblance of the visual and strategic style of the architect and original hole.  It seems to me because of the efforts of those whom have been trying to protect the real gems around the country, the golf world has changed, and an architect can not just say that it was the client who ordered the changes.  The architect in today's world has to say no.  At least that is what has been impressed upon me.

I will say this, if you want to be a part of the of the solution in protecting the real gems around the country you can not afford to disfigure any holes on these courses.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2003, 01:24:27 PM »
Kelly, Thank you for being one of the VERY FEW architects that are showing INTEGRITY.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #27 on: February 13, 2003, 02:20:59 PM »
I have been reluctant to post on this thread because eveyone seems to be extremely sensitive and protective of their respective positions.  Accordingly, from the start, my comments are largely directed at the manner in which we direct criticism, not at the substance of the remarks.  I am a real fan of Geoff's work, I own everything he has published and look forward to future work.  I agree with his view of Riviera prior to the most recent changes and based upon the description of Fazio's work, I suspect I will concur with his analysis when I get to see the work in person.  What troubles me about his website critique is the attack on Fazio's motivation; the remarks about "vanity" etc.  Geoff is not alone in this tactic, much of our discussion contains ad hominim attacks that have nothing to do with the substance of the work which is the subject of the particular discussion.  Its not that I am personally offended by this type of repartee; I have been exposed to a fair amount of "trash talking" on and off the athletic fields and it generally rolls off my back.  I don't know Tom Fazio so I have no incentive to defend him although published accounts seem to indicate he is a civic minded family man.  I share much of the criticism of his work.  But when we dilute the criticism of the work with personal attacks, we distract from the substance of the critique and open the door for those who suggest that we are only involved in "bashing" or jealousy.  This is true regardless of the target; Fazio, Rees, Art Hills, Muirhead.  From the standpoint of architectural criticism I really don't care whether a designer is motivated by art or money nor does it matter whether he is the type of person I would like to play with or not.  I am interested in his work.  As a professional advocate who writes, argues, and negotiates for a living ( ok, I confess that I am a lawyer) I have learned that when an adversary turns to personal attacks, he is usually out of meaningful arguments.  Therefore, it would behoove Geoff and others to leave the "cheap shots" out of their critiques, not because they are particularly offensive but because they are not persuasive and serve as distractions.  Leave the speculative analysis of the motivation or ethics of architects to a separate post (which might be very interesting in its own right) and invite Dr. Katz to chime in.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #28 on: February 13, 2003, 02:58:23 PM »
Rich --

I can't agree with your statement that "lost-glory-days-I used-to-be-able-to-keep-it-up-with-(insert name of favorite pro here)-nostalgia is at the heart of much of the desire to roll back the game."

I could never keep it up with (insert name of favorite pro here) on my best days when I was young and strong -- and now, at 50, I'm driving it as far as ever, sometimes farther. My motivation for wanting to see a Competition ball or an overall rollback has nothing to do with me keeping up with (favorite pro), or (favorite pro) keeping up with Ernie, but it has everything to do with Ernie hitting it so far that the owners of a 7300-yard course believe they now have to extend it to 7600 yards. The dimensions of the game are out of whack, and the ball is the easiest way to fix it. If that means I can no longer drive it where (favorite pro) used to drive it in 1967, so much the better.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Dr._Katz

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #29 on: February 13, 2003, 03:07:00 PM »
Mr. Solow:

I do not speculate on the Internet on the motivations or ethics of architects or posters to this site. I do monitor this website and I am on call but only upon pesonal request. I do treat patients regardless of their profession who are afflicted by neuropsychosis, a condition that statistics have shown is almost a requirement for registration to GOLFCLUBATLAS.COM.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2003, 03:21:18 PM »
Dr. Katz; Given the shared maladies you refer to in your prior post, are we eligible for group therapy, or even better, group rates?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2003, 06:19:08 PM »
Ben Dewar,

How do you know what the architect said he was going to do?
Absent that knowledge how can you make a definitive evaluation ?

Kelly,

I understand you viewpoint and share it in certain circumstances.  I just don't see everything in such black and white terms as everyone else, especially when so much is unknown.

I'm not saying that the architect is blameless, but in the ultimate, the owner is responsible.  And, it may be that the owner got what the owner wanted.  I don't think that Fazio wandered in off the street and suggested that the 8th hole be redesigned or restored, there has to be more information that could shed light on the chain of events leading to the alteration of the 8th hole.

I am puzzled by a few things.

Did Fazio work for free ?
Why was he brought in ?  
How was he brought in ?
What was the directive given to him by the owner ?
Did the owner give him carte blanche ?
Did the owner approve all plans and changes ?
Did Fazio comment on the changes pre and post construction?
Was there any attempt by Geoff and others to approach the owner with their thoughts, research and ideas ?
Was there any attempt to likewise approach Fazio ?
Why wasn't the recognized expert on Thomas given an audience or listened to by either the owner or Fazio ?

I would agree with you, that other than lengthening tees or restoring features previously lost, architects should pass on disfigurations or personal interpretations, BUT........
Don't single Fazio out, there are a lot of architects who have altered, and continue to alter classics, but nary a word of angst is directed toward them.  Some of them have been discussed on this sight in glowing terms.   So, how is it that they get a pass ?

It would seem like such a simple project to return the 8th hole to it's former form, especially when the expert on Thomas is a nearby resident and MEMBER of the golf course.  
What went wrong at Riviera ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #32 on: February 13, 2003, 07:00:37 PM »
Tom MacWood,

Quote

The non-option option design reminds me of the 18th at Valahala. What about the 18th at Bethpage?

In the context of your above comment about the 18th at Bethpage, how would you evaluate the non-option design at the 8th at Troon, the 6th at NGLA, or the 12th at ANGC ?

Oh, I forgot, you've never played the 18th at Bethpage.
How can you comment on the holes playability if you've never played it ?

I have, and I can tell you that options do exist.
You probably missed them from the aerials and ground level photos you studied.  

Perhaps this is another reason why on site field or playing experience is essential in accurately evaluating a golf hole.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #33 on: February 13, 2003, 07:12:27 PM »
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed. Notice my question mark? There are options at #8 Riviera too, just not practical ones.

I think you are needed at 'Rees on the Golf Channel' thread--there's whole lot of bashing go on over there.  :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #34 on: February 13, 2003, 07:41:55 PM »
Pat, I agree with Kelly.  It is the architect's responsibility.

As for your questions:

1.Did Fazio work for free ?  
Doesn't matter.

2.Why was he brought in ?  
Hopefully to restore...not to butcher.

3.How was he brought in ?  
Doesn't matter.

4.What was the directive given to him by the owner ?  
If it's not to restore...then shouldn't he walk away?  If enough architects did this perhaps the owner would get the picture...but perhaps that is asking too much of modern architects, but not of responsible architects.

5.Did the owner give him carte blanche ?  
If he doesn't have the authority, then he should walk away...especially when it's pro bono work.

6.Did the owner approve all plans and changes ?  
Who is the restorer?  The expert?  The owner or the architect?  The architect has to realize his ass is on the line, and express this to the owner...to me it seems a simple way to express the need to transfer full responsibility to the architect...instead of being a rubber stamp.

7.Did Fazio comment on the changes pre and post construction?  
Doesn't matter.  What matters is the final result?

8.Was there any attempt by Geoff and others to approach the owner with their thoughts, research and ideas ?
It's the architect's job to get it right and seek sources if he needs them.

9.Was there any attempt to likewise approach Fazio ?
The architect should seek out those in the know...not the other way around.

10.Why wasn't the recognized expert on Thomas given an audience or listened to by either the owner or Fazio?
Once again, it's the architect's responsibility to bring in the educated voices of reason.


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #35 on: February 13, 2003, 07:54:26 PM »
Tom MacWood,

I may not go to bed happy every night, but I wake up happy every morning.

You can't make a pronouncement on the playability of a hole in the context of options, when you've never played the hole.
The 18th at Bethpage does have options, risk/reward off the tee, and on the approach shot, probably more than on most par 4's.

Other holes that you're familiar with might have been better examples of holes lacking options.

Just because a hole lack options, doesn't mean it's lacking in architectural appeal.  One only has to look at the three holes I cited, which all lack options.

I know you object to barroom brawls, but you deliberately keep elbowing and bumping into people.
You provocateur you  ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #36 on: February 13, 2003, 08:11:31 PM »
Pat
Since when is a question a pronouncement? Ah shit! I think I just made another pronouncement.  ???
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #37 on: February 13, 2003, 08:13:31 PM »
Tony Ristola,

You can't dismiss relevant questions with non-answers or cute quips.

The architect isn't the ultimate decision maker, the owner is.

How did Fazio get it right at Pine Valley and so wrong at Riviera ?

Could it be that the respective owners had a direct impact on the mission statement of the project and the result ?

What harm is there in finding out more about the alteration of the 8th hole ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #38 on: February 13, 2003, 08:59:21 PM »
Pat says "don't single Fazio out, there are a lot of architects who have altered and continue to alter classics.  But nary a word of angst is directed toward them.  some of them have been discussed on this sight in glowing terms. So, how is it they get a pass."

I can understand people favoring certain architects work on new designs based on style etc,etc.  But the restoration work on the classics should really be judged on the same standard regardless of who does the work because their should really be no discernable style.  

My question is what restoration work of the "favored" architects should have evoked angst from people on this site?

I have personally not seen much restoration work and most of the work I have seen has been done by Rees Jones and I suspect most do not think he is one of the "favored" on this site ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Lynn Shackelford

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #39 on: February 13, 2003, 09:53:20 PM »
Pat M.
You forgot one question.

Was Fazio ever there?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #40 on: February 13, 2003, 10:11:35 PM »
Pat:  Those were answers to your questions.  You may not like putting the onus on the architect, prefer to dismiss the answers as "non-answers" and "cute quips", look for deeper meaning or excuses (a "third way" to explain the mishap)...that's your thought process.

"The architect isn't the ultimate decision maker, the owner is."  
If the architect doesn't know what the parameters are of the job before starting...he hasn't done his job...especially when you're "restoring" something equivalent to a Mona Lisa in our industry.  He has to know what risks he is assuming...and make his decisions from there.  Whether this was the club's ideas or his...it most likely wasn't the best series of decisions he's made.  Just look at the results.


"How did Fazio get it right at Pine Valley and so wrong at Riviera?"
Inverness? (Dye said he would make the changes here if the club would restore them after the US Open...they said no and he walked away.)  Augusta?  Merion?  I don't know what he did at Pine Valley but on a thread about a year ago I was going to comment on the TPC of Pine Valley look of the 10th hole...The banks of the green down to the bunker lost their ragged, natural nature.  Is that the hand of Fazio?

"Could it be that the respective owners had a direct impact on the mission statement of the project and the result?"
Well, from what Geoff has reported and I trust is accurate, this was sold as something George Thomas Jnr. would have been smiling down on.  They were proud of their work.  Thought they got it "just right" it seems.
From Geoff's piece: “At Fazio Golf Course Designers, our hope and our trust is that the PGA Tour players will see and appreciate the restoration and its historical significance.”

"What harm is there in finding out more about the alteration of the 8th hole?"
The final result speaks for itself.  It's all that need be known now.  Mr. Fazio's been in the business long enough, and if the owners were asking him to be the rubber stamp instead of the professional driving the research and execution, you would like to think he would be professional enough to see the consequences after evaluating their ideas and "just say no" to accepting the work.  Setting a higher standard, educating the club.

I have no idea what the input was from the club, the owner, or whether it was Fazio and his staff, and it really doesn't matter.

The Finns have a saying..."when the s__t is in the pants, it's too late."

Fortunately this isn't the Mona Lisa, it's more like pants...and like pants this mess can be cleaned up...if the owners want to.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #41 on: February 13, 2003, 10:37:28 PM »
Kelly

I take your point regarding one's "core" sport, and you are probably right that golf would be better off with its "leaders" being people who grew up with the game #1 in their hearts.

Rick

I didn't express myself terribly well.  I think where I was going was to suggest that the reason that courses are being made ridiculously long (and many classic ones disfigured) was because the "past-glory-days" brigade have a tendency to identify with their golf courses and do not like to see skilled players toying with them.  Like you, I'd happily play a competition ball, if my fellow competitors were.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Will E

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #42 on: February 14, 2003, 07:54:44 AM »
I really enjoyed Geoff's site.

Based upon the almost unanimous thoughts on the current state of the hole, are there any plans to restore the hole again?

What does Geoff suggest occur now?







« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #43 on: February 14, 2003, 08:53:17 AM »
Lynn Shackelford,

I was going to include that as one of my questions.

I was going to ask, "did Fazio do the work or was it delegated to a design associate ?"  And, if the answer was the latter,
I was also going to ask it Fazio reviewed and approved the plans in the office and on site.
But I mistakenly assumed that he must have.

What troubles me is that it seems like it would have been so easy to "get it right", so I don't understand, what went so wrong, and would like to know more about the project.

Was a membership letter campaign to the owner ever undertaken ?
Did the membership try to dissuade the owner or did they endorse the changes ?

It seems puzzling that a true restoration wasn't accomplished, but, I can relate to that at other clubs I'm familiar with.
It's very frustrating.

Tony Ristola,

How do you know that the project at Merion didn't come out pretty much as intended ?  Have you played the golf course pre and post project ?  Before jumping on the popular bandwagon at Merion, go play the golf course and let me know how you think it turned out.  You might be surprised.

With respect to ANGC, a zillion people have been responsible for many, many changes to that golf course.  Does Fazio bear greater responsibility than all the others ?  Exactly how has the work he designed/supervised turned out at ANGC ?
Have you seen and played the golf course pre and post project ?  I tend to believe that the changes to the 13th hole will be well received, as to the others, time will tell.

Who are the custodians of the golf courses at Merion, ANGC and Riviera, a hired professional, or the owners ?

Is it your position that the architect is infallible and should never be challenged, because they and they alone should be responsible for the outcome of the work ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #44 on: February 14, 2003, 09:06:15 AM »
Do you notice how I'm very patiently staying out of this dialogue with Pat about Fazio and Riviera, Merion, whatever? In the interest of time and space I believe I wll remain out so this thread doesn't needlessly reach 15 pages of Pat's relentlessly redundant questions intended to rid the world of architecture of any hint or vestige of bias.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #45 on: February 14, 2003, 09:09:35 AM »
Haven't we seen this car wreck before?

Bob
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #46 on: February 14, 2003, 09:35:30 AM »

Quote
Is it your position that the architect is infallible and should never be challenged, because they and they alone should be responsible for the outcome of the work ?

I had thought my reading comprehension skills were at least okay, but I must say I don't have a clue what this question means, especially in the context of Tony's questioning of Fazio. How do you connect those two phrases? One man is responsible, therefore he's infallible?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

TEPaul

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #47 on: February 14, 2003, 12:01:06 PM »
"How do you connect those two phrases?"

GeorgeP:

Please don't ask Pat Mucci questions like that--not unless you really do enjoy another 5 pages and 500 more questions!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #48 on: February 14, 2003, 12:39:45 PM »
Pat:

"Who are the custodians of the golf courses at Merion, ANGC and Riviera, a hired professional, or the owners?" PM
No matter how tempting, the architect doesn't have to take the project. He can exhibit a little self control.  Pete Dye did this, when I'm sure he could have used the work, and I admire the guy for it. Nobody is forcing the project upon an architect, it is an opportunity to accept or refuse.  

If midway through the Owners decide on another direction which is to the dertiment of the restoration...something not agreed upon beforehand, a bate-and-switch situation, a clear detriment, he can always walk away because he's positioned himself to restore, not deface.

"Is it your position that the architect is infallible and should never be challenged, because they and they alone should be responsible for the outcome of the work ?"
Pat, the architect is responsible for the work produced.  He knows the score coming in. If he doesn't have a free hand, he should know what the clear goals of the club are.  If he's unclear about the historic aspects he should do his research  and report back.  If he doesn't, especially on a historic project...it's his fault.  Not the owners.  Not the contractor's.  It's nobody else's fault but his own.

Would you walk into such situations hoping for the best or having a clear mission with complete authority to execute the plan?

On Augusta:  I've been a little inconsistent.  Augusta holds a unique position in the game as the only major hosted at one course.  I agreed with the lengthening because the course was no longer the challenge it once presented...It lost its teeth...thanks to the USGA sleeping at the wheel.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Guest

Re: The option free hole by G. Shackelford
« Reply #49 on: February 14, 2003, 03:54:01 PM »
George Pazin,

I think the connection may be as follows.
If Tony says the architect bears the entire burden of responsibility for the final product, is Pat saying that it's impossible to disconnect the architect from reality, allowing him to be isolated and insulated from the views, opinions and influence of all others, including members, owners, banks, regulatory agencies, environmental groups, contractors, sub-contractors, and sidewalk superintendents ?  And that the concept of the architect as the sole party responsible for any product is unrealistic.

What architect has complete control over every facet of a project and what architect knows the A to Z of every project before becoming involved ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back