[Garland Bayley]

Well, I'll tell you what I think. Tom Fazio thinking he can do better than the golden age architects is BS. Tom Fazio thinking he can do better than Paul Cowley would be BS. Tom Fazio thinking he can do better than Jeff Brauer would be BS.

IMHO the truly talented can see the talent in others and know they are best served by concentrating on doing a better and better job to try to get or stay ahead, and are least served by crowing about being better than others, golden age or not.

Notice the difference between TF's attitude and that of Ian Andrew's as stated in todays "Feature Interview".

So when I’m up against someone I respect - I feel honored to be included on a list with their name on it, My philosophy will always remain the same - if it’s not going to be me – I’m glad if the work is going to someone who will do a good job. I think if you ask all of us, we’ll answer the same thing, we don’t mind missing out on a project as long as it goes to someone who cares.

 

The first job I ever chased on my own was Taconic. I got down to the final two, and when they told me that they had selected Gil, I told them they made a great choice. I was disappointed because the course was really cool and that it would have been a great start for me – but I thought that they had made an excellent choice and Gil will do great work. It was easy to move on right away.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

It is pretty standard practice to be gracious in defeat.  And, in your last post, you quoted yourself, not TF to make our point about his arrogance!

I actually think TF would be very gracious, too. He certainly has lost enough projects to JN, PD, etc.  To me? Well, not so much, but he has never been anything but gracious to me.  And, potential clients have told me that he is invariably gracious in interviews. 

One told me that he brought in a brochure, showed the pictures of, say Shadow Creek, and decribed it as "an interesting technical challenge that we thought came out okay, given the difficulties" as if the proposed Owner may not have heard of it! 

It seems he actually gets a lot of mileage out of being a superstar without a lot of ego.  It is quite possible, for probably the reasons I list in my first response on this thread, that he truly believes what he says about modern courses, at least in general.  I don't doubt that he recognizes great design from the Golden Age. 

In fact, I will say he recognizes it more than some members of gca.com recognize excellence in modern design, just for discussion's sake.

[Garland Bayley]

There is a bit on context left out of my last post. If you read Ian's interview, you find he emphasizes restoring golden age courses to their origins. Others on this thread, have pointed out that TF has placed his own out of sync ideas in work he has done on golden age courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

Perhaps that debate on what is out of sync should be left to a more generic thread without mentioning names.

Someone asked if ANGC or Riviera "needed" Fazio's work.  Certainly they thought they did, and for a very specific reason - to make those courses tournament ready, which is a unique need.  While we talk about those courses all the time, that situation comes up for about a dozen of America's 16,000 golf courses.  And, its not like either of those two courses (or virtually any other Golden Age course) hasn't renovated before, due to infrastructure declines, budgets, rising standards, membership changes, ownerhsip changes, you name it.

When anyone on this board claims that a change to a GA course is "out of sync" it means specifically to the original design intent, I presume.  Many, many others would argue that its important for any course to by more in sync with those who are going to pay to play it, whether public or private via dues.  While there is a wide range of motivations to play a particular course, the percentage who play because its faithfully retored is quite small. 

In speaking to Bill Coore regarding their 1994 restoration of Riviera, he noted that there were a lot of value judgements where the course was most certainly NOT restored to original design, but to the members wishes or mental images of what it should be.  However, he markets the image that they are restoring it as much as possible. 

Fazio markets the image that he makes it as good as possible currently.  I know he restored the double fw on 8 and some other lost features at Riv. Goeff Shackleford didn't buy anything he did, but I always wondered if CC had done it (they did have the chance, no?) if he would have thought it was better almost before it was done.

In my mind, the mindset towards the marketing of two designers forms opinions far more than the actual work differences they might have.  Its like the Dems and the Republicans.  If, for example (and there could be many in reverse) the Republicans want to slow Social Security payments slightly to control the overall budget, Dems say they are "gutting social security!"  And for all the Presidential debates, etc. I would bet that with about 90% of the Federal Budget set by prevously mandated programs, the differences in McCain's and Obama's proposed budgets might have been different by about 2% tops.  But, we argue over that 2% as if its 100% diametrically opposed.

Same deal here with a few hot button courses.  Just MHO.

[Ian Andrew]

I think Tom Fazio and his entire Organization is great...top notch and really innovative in the last 30+ years. They have set a standard of success while promoting their style that is pretty damn good.

Seriously, this TF bashing is BS.....and is there is anyone out there of enough stature to debate it?

Paul,

It's don't see this as bashing - it's a backlash.  He may be right - and he may be wrong - but his is being villified for what he's implying.

Tom is better off to leave others to decide his legacy - the more he tries to guide it - the more offended people get. At the moment - he's becoming his own worst enemy.

He has a legacy and it lies somewhere between his view of things and the people on this site's view.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

The original quote from TF covered all the work from the 90's not just his own, again from the snippet I read.  And, he went out of his way to acknowledge that others thought it was the 1920's was the best era.  That implies he thinks its a close horse race.  And I sincerely doubt he thinks that based on the top 10 courses of each era - I suspect he considers the breadth of the work in the 90's, as I alluded in my first post.

Its only the people on this site that, after 79 threads have morphed his quote into "Tom Fazio is better than Alister MacKenzie, etc."  Backlash? How about hysteria, revisionism, etc. on our part?

[Garland Bayley]

...
But, if you compare the typical Tom Fazio creation - which is a members club - with less famous members clubs of the 1920's, rather than the top 2 or 3, like Winged Foot - I think they are head and shoulders above the less famous club courses of the GA.

Then, as hinted above, go compare an average new public course with one from that age.  The mid level courses are way better (Brauer vs. Bendelow? - no contest!).........

Iin fact, it stands to reason that most of us SHOULD be better, having had the experience of all of those who came before to draw on.
...

IMHO this is the offending part of this thread. You figure it out Jeff.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

While I know Bendelow ended up having some pretty good courses on his resume, I am still pretty confident that the mid level gca's of today who are building middle and upscale public courses do better than he did on his typical "18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon" type course.  I know that because I have played a lot of both and enjoy the newer ones better and I ask a lot of golfers.   Now, you may argue that your tastes (or tastes of the golden age) are superior, and the mass of golfers doesn't know a damn thing about what's good or bad, and I understand that.  However, at that point, the arugment can end with a polite agreement to disagree.

I used "Brauer vs Bendelow" simply because its alliterative. 

[David Stamm]

Its only the people on this site that, after 79 threads have morphed his quote into "Tom Fazio is better than Alister MacKenzie, etc."  Backlash? How about hysteria, revisionism, etc. on our part?

Horseshit, Jeff. Would not Fazio's "resto" work speak for itself? Has not Fazio made the assumption that if MacKenzie, Ross, Tillinghast or whomever were alive today that they would be doing things the way he and others today would be doing them in his own book? Hysteria? Revisionism? Have you seen what he's done at places like Bel Air? And don't go to the "well the members let him" card. Without implicating anyone, I was told from people on the inside at that club that he has never let the membership get a word in edgewise when it comes to the work perfomed at the course and his word rules, despite some members being in disagreement with what he's done. I have no problem per se with TF's original work, but the man should not be let within 100 miles of a resto project. His track record and attitude towards the classics speaks for itself. Ian hit the nail on the head, TF needs to just shut up about comparing his own work with what's come before him and let others judge for themselves and get over it.

[Ian Andrew]

nevermind....

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I agree with Ian.  I have re-read everything on this thread, and my posts, plus TF's thoughts are entirely plausible, but not beyond disagreement. But, if you can't discuss anything civilly, I am simply not going to bother. 

It is, after all, what it is.  I say that, believing it, but fully expecting you to pick that statement apart as fallacy!

PS - There is absolutely NO TONE of hysteria in your response!

[Sean_A]

David & Pete

I could care less about Fazio and his work, but to blame an archie for perceived inferior/unsymphathetic work is unhelpful to say the least.  It seems to me you lot are getting a bit out of control.  Its one thing to have an opinion about certain aspect's of Fazio's work, but it can't be denied that his work in total is well respected and very popular.  I can't see anything so terrible about trumpeting ones own work even if it means a guy has to lift all his peers around him in the process.  OK, so you think he tramples on memberships of classic courses, but I could counter that with memberships are weak for being trampled on by an employee.  At the end of the day the club is responsible for whatever work is done to the course and this is very cut and dried - end of story.  There is no point in blaming an archie unless the club doesn't intend to pay because a breach of contract occurred or some other unprofessional act.  It seems to be the American way these days to blame anyone and anybody other than the people making the decisions.   All clubs should know by now that allowing someone, anyone in for a reno or whatever archies are calling it these days is a roll of the dice.

Ciao

[George Pazin]

Call me crazy, but I often see the so-called Fazio bashers on this site provide specific examples (see Mike Cirba's anti-strategy thread as a perfect example), while the many Fazio defenders (typically industry folks, now that JakaB is gone) speak mostly in glowing... vagaries.

Comparing "average" GA courses to "average" 90s courses is about as meaningless a triviality as I've ever heard, and I'd hope that the statistical guru Brent Hutto would back me up on that.

Nice post earlier, Ian, as always. TF tends to bring trouble upon himself, at least with this crowd. It reminds me of this exchange:

Frank Burns: Why are you guys always abusing me?

Hawkeye: You invite abuse, Frank - it wouldn't be polite not to accept it.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Yeah, what George said!

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

You're crazy......

See the Frank Burns quote above, which, BTW, I also caught on the MASH retrospective aired last night (only briefly after returning from the hockey game)

I say that in all good humor, and only because when I used that phrase, someone chimed in the same response I did. 

All of that said, I think I could point to some pretty specific facts defending Fazio as well.  I tend to notice how generic bashing of modern architecture is here  (words like "always" and "never" come up frequently rather than the other way around.

Short Version - All including me have our own perspectives and thus our own set of "facts" to back those up.  That's all I was really trying to point out.

[George Pazin]

Thanks, Brent.

[George Pazin]

George,

You're crazy......

You're not the first person to tell me that... today.

I understand your point (I think) and your defense of Fazio. However, that doesn't make you right and Garland wrong, nor the opposite. I get extremely frustrated when anyone (especially posters I have the utmost respect and admiration for)  tells anyone else that their bashing is tiresome or biased or whatever, or even labels criticism as bashing.

Bashing is needed for good discussion on the site! As long as it is well reasoned, informed bashing.

[David Stamm]

David,

I agree with Ian.  I have re-read everything on this thread, and my posts, plus TF's thoughts are entirely plausible, but not beyond disagreement. But, if you can't discuss anything civilly, I am simply not going to bother. 

It is, after all, what it is.  I say that, believing it, but fully expecting you to pick that statement apart as fallacy!

PS - There is absolutely NO TONE of hysteria in your response!

How am I not being civil? Because I said horseshit? I'm sorry, let me reprhrase, equine caca.


Meanwhile, I'm going to turn on my stereo and listen to Def Leppard and play a certain song that you seem to be dedicating to me and reflect on your fallacy of a statement.

[Pete Lavallee]

David & Pete

I could care less about Fazio and his work, but to blame an archie for perceived inferior/unsymphathetic work is unhelpful to say the least.  It seems to me you lot are getting a bit out of control.  Its one thing to have an opinion about certain aspect's of Fazio's work, but it can't be denied that his work in total is well respected and very popular. 

Apparently not respected enough for Mr. Fazio as the gist of the article is him lamenting that GA courses clutter the Top 100 lists and not his. MacDonalds is very popular too; does that make it good also.

I can't see anything so terrible about trumpeting ones own work even if it means a guy has to lift all his peers around him in the process. 

Frankly I have never heard him say anything nice about his peers; have you?

OK, so you think he tramples on memberships of classic courses, but I could counter that with memberships are weak for being trampled on by an employee.  At the end of the day the club is responsible for whatever work is done to the course and this is very cut and dried - end of story.  There is no point in blaming an archie unless the club doesn't intend to pay because a breach of contract occurred or some other unprofessional act.  It seems to be the American way these days to blame anyone and anybody other than the people making the decisions.   All clubs should know by now that allowing someone, anyone in for a reno or whatever archies are calling it these days is a roll of the dice.

The Members at Riviera don't get to vote and the last time I checked the Chairman of Augusta National doesn't poll the membership before "keeping the course current". If he did then I know of at least two members, a Mr. Nickluas and a Mr. Palmer, who would voice their concerns.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I don't see this wholesale bashing of modern architecture that you speak of.  I think we have plenty of examples on this site where many modern architects and thier work are well respected and given lots of kudos and props for thier efforts.  (Some even have thier own fan clubs!!  )

On the flipside it is true, others do get bashed for what they put in the ground, and in some cases maybe a little unfairly, but as George says this is what the site is about to give a take on something as honestly as you can.

As it relates to restorations, I can see where some may have a beef with whats happened to some of America's greatest gems.  Its one thing to at least try to return a course as close to what it once was at some given point in time. And its completely another when one completly disregards previous work to stamp thier trademarks on said course in the same fashion as some male animals mark thier territories in the wild.  I think this is where many of the biggest objections lie and I can't blame them for feeling that way....even if they don't have a chip in the game.

[Brent Hutto]

Jeff: "George, you're crazy."

George: "I want a second opinion."

Jeff: "OK, you're ugly too."

...and...rimshot!

Thank you, thank you very much. I'll be back after this short break.

[A.G._Crockett]

Jeff,
For me, the issue is not whether or not Tom Fazio is successful, innovative, gives the client what he wants, or anything else that is and has been said in defense of his work.  I freely admit to not having seen the vast majority of his work.  I have also lived long enough to know now that the popularity of a person or thing may or may not have anything to do with lasting, true value.  And the issue isn't whether or not great courses that will equal or surpass anything done in the past are being built; they are, and they are wonderful.  I've gotten to play new stuff that I love every bit as much as the classics that I've been fortunate enough to play.

For me, the issue is that his courses that I have played (9 or 10?), without exception, just leave me cold.  No real desire to see the place again, no vivid memories of great holes, and too often not much memory of ANY holes.  Often, in fact, I leave with the feeling that a great opportunity was missed, and/or that I have been ripped off!  In fact, I've never returned to the one I liked the best of his courses that I have played, despite pretty close proximity.  I just don't care to.

That is NOT true of my feelings of the vast majority of modern golf courses, maybe not even of MOST modern golf courses.  I rarely play a golf course I don't like, and rarely have much bad to say about them or the gentlemen who design them; I have no real idea how you guys do it, and I admire the artistry of your profession immensely.

Fazio has a special place in my heart, though.  My first and second plays of his redesign of the course at UNC are the beginning of my interest in GCA.  bummed out the first time I saw the $8M redesign that more than tripled greens fees, I assumed it must have been a bad day or bad mood on my part.  The second play made me realize that it wasn't me at all, and I've been hooked on this GCA stuff ever since; I wanted to know what went wrong at Finley, which I dearly, dearly loved.

That's why it's hard to swallow when Fazio self-promotes at the expense of time-tested classics.  You and I both know that he means HIS courses are better; he sure ain't advertising for Jeff Brauer, or Paul Cowley, or Tom Doak, or Mike Young, or anybody else.

Well, in my small, unimportant book, his courses are NOT better!  They are big, and they are pretty, and they are profitable, and I shoot some of my best scores on them.  But great, and the equal of the classics?  I don't believe that history will judge them that way.  I really don't.

Just one man's opinion.

[John Moore II]

Fazio has a special place in my heart, though.  My first and second plays of his redesign of the course at UNC are the beginning of my interest in GCA.  bummed out the first time I saw the $8M redesign that more than tripled greens fees, I assumed it must have been a bad day or bad mood on my part.  The second play made me realize that it wasn't me at all, and I've been hooked on this GCA stuff ever since; I wanted to know what went wrong at Finley, which I dearly, dearly loved.

Strange that you talk about Finley so poorly. I played there just today. 3rd time I played it though the first time in about 8 years. I never played it prior to the Fazio redo. But I thought it was a pretty cool place. I thought that the first time I played it and I thought that today. Now there were some things that I knew were manufactured, but I still say the course was pretty cool. Good strategy, decent internal contours in the greens, fair contours in the fairways, and so forth. The ponds were likely manmade, but they also served a good function since I think the areas would have flooded anyway during anything more than a light rain (the largest pond, on 15, is the lowest spot on the property and for a good distance around the town, so the pond is basically the drain basin for a good portion of the town) I like Finley. While I don't think it is the best Fazio course I have played, its a good course, even a fun course, in my simple opinion.

[A.G._Crockett]

Fazio has a special place in my heart, though.  My first and second plays of his redesign of the course at UNC are the beginning of my interest in GCA.  bummed out the first time I saw the $8M redesign that more than tripled greens fees, I assumed it must have been a bad day or bad mood on my part.  The second play made me realize that it wasn't me at all, and I've been hooked on this GCA stuff ever since; I wanted to know what went wrong at Finley, which I dearly, dearly loved.

Strange that you talk about Finley so poorly. I played there just today. 3rd time I played it though the first time in about 8 years. I never played it prior to the Fazio redo. But I thought it was a pretty cool place. I thought that the first time I played it and I thought that today. Now there were some things that I knew were manufactured, but I still say the course was pretty cool. Good strategy, decent internal contours in the greens, fair contours in the fairways, and so forth. The ponds were likely manmade, but they also served a good function since I think the areas would have flooded anyway during anything more than a light rain (the largest pond, on 15, is the lowest spot on the property and for a good distance around the town, so the pond is basically the drain basin for a good portion of the town) I like Finley. While I don't think it is the best Fazio course I have played, its a good course, even a fun course, in my simple opinion.

I just played Finley over the Xmas holidays and usually get over there a couple of times a year on trips home.  I like it much better than I first did, but I'll go to my grave believing that if the original course had be renovated
(drainage, new turf, reworked greens and bunkers, and with some added length) it would have been far superior to the current course.

[Sean_A]

David & Pete

I could care less about Fazio and his work, but to blame an archie for perceived inferior/unsymphathetic work is unhelpful to say the least.  It seems to me you lot are getting a bit out of control.  Its one thing to have an opinion about certain aspect's of Fazio's work, but it can't be denied that his work in total is well respected and very popular. 

Apparently not respected enough for Mr. Fazio as the gist of the article is him lamenting that GA courses clutter the Top 100 lists and not his. MacDonalds is very popular too; does that make it good also.

I can't see anything so terrible about trumpeting ones own work even if it means a guy has to lift all his peers around him in the process. 

Frankly I have never heard him say anything nice about his peers; have you?

OK, so you think he tramples on memberships of classic courses, but I could counter that with memberships are weak for being trampled on by an employee.  At the end of the day the club is responsible for whatever work is done to the course and this is very cut and dried - end of story.  There is no point in blaming an archie unless the club doesn't intend to pay because a breach of contract occurred or some other unprofessional act.  It seems to be the American way these days to blame anyone and anybody other than the people making the decisions.   All clubs should know by now that allowing someone, anyone in for a reno or whatever archies are calling it these days is a roll of the dice.

The Members at Riviera don't get to vote and the last time I checked the Chairman of Augusta National doesn't poll the membership before "keeping the course current". If he did then I know of at least two members, a Mr. Nickluas and a Mr. Palmer, who would voice their concerns.

Pete

As I said earlier, Fazio is not my bag so I don't follow him or his work.  That said, saying that the archies of the 90s are better than the classic era may be misguided, but it sure is complimentary. 

Is that fact that members can't vote the fault of Fazio or the membership?  The bottom line is that someone hires the archie so that someone is responsible for the decision.  Its always easier for folks to blame others rather than look in the mirror and accept their mistakes. 

Just to be clear, I am not defending Fazio or any other archie, I am trying to place blame or kudos squarely where it belongs - in the hands of clubs.  The archie is merely the instrument of the club.  Granted some are better instruments than others, but its only an opinion.  The important thing is for clubs to learn what they did right and wrong in these situations and try to improve the next time - which is surely bound to happen again because clubs just can't help themselves.  If it weren't for meddling clubs many wouldn't have botched courses in the first place. 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()