[Chris_Clouser]

``I still flash back to when this whole place was dirt,'' Tom Fazio, the architect who oversaw the changes, said as he watched Tiger Woods tee off. ``Then, to flash forward to Tiger, it's exciting.''

I'll leave it to you to comment, but I thought this would possibly promote some discussion.  

[Kevin_Reilly]

I don't get it.  

[golfarc]

A good friend of mine connected to a Fazio project was on hand for one of his site visits.  

At one point Fazio breaks into his hand-waving mode and states that he was pleased to see how a particular hole was turning out during construction because when he first walked the site it was impossible for people to "see" his vision of the hole, now look at it....

The peculiar thing was that he could not describe even closely what the existing terrain was like when he arrived there.  One reason was that he really didn't design the hole, and some speculate he had nenver been that deep into the property before that day.  

Thank goodness for associate designers

[Tom Anderson]

Chris

He is refering to when the course was in construction mode for the changes - he was NOT refering to Augusta as 'dirt'.  

I know the proclivity to attempt negative inferences to Fazio comments here, but come on!

[Herb_Flood]

I really wish people on this site could just acknowledge that..."Fazio did a great job at ANGC." I think it was awesome!

[Mike_Cirba]

Herb,

I think a LOT of people on here talked in real detail over the past week or so about what they did and didn't like about the changes.  

On the plus side,  I heard;

1) The holes played more challengingly with the additional length, or at least the pros were forced to hit longer clubs to several holes.

2) The changes were well integrated in the sense that it looked pretty much the same, only longer.

On the down side, I heard;

1) The fairways in landing areas were "flattened", with the unintentional effect of easing the approaches.

2) That the additional length tended to give only the longest drivers the opportunity to win.

3) That the planting of trees and narrowing of fairways created too much boring "chip out" golf.

4) That the narrowing is not only philosophically opposed to the design intent of ANGC, but also limits strategy that had always been present in the past.

5) That the net result of limiting options and lengthening holes led to more boring, routine golf than ANGC has exhibited in the past, where the line between eagle and double bogey was very fine indeed.

Herb...it might be instructive if you tell us exactly what was "awesome" about the changes.  Thanks.

[Tim_Weiman]

Golfarc:

I'm not really sure what the point of your post was.

Most here would agree that associate designers rarely get the credit they deserve.  Wouldn't it have been better to tell us the name of the project, the name of the associate designer and what you felt was noteworthy about his/her work?

In that case, we would have learned something and the associate architect might have received credit deserved.
Wouldn't that have been better?  More informative?

Instead of saying something specific about the associate architect, your post comes across as general Fazio bashing.  What do we learn from that?

I continue to believe the best example was set by Tom Doak in The Confidential Guide  If you want to comment about a specific project, go ahead.  Tell us what you liked or didn't like.  If you follow Tom's example, we can learn something.

But, general bashing doesn't add anything to our discussion.


Herb Flood:

You are the flip side of our friend "Golfarc".  You tell us you believe Fazio did an awesome job at Augusta, but provide no details.

Can you tells us why you think Fazio did an "awesome" job at Augusta?

[Tony Petersen]

I would have to admit that, though not a fan of Fazio, I thought the work he did at ANGC was necessary for the Master's to remain a true test of golf. Don't get me wrong, Jones and MacKenzie created a materpiece to treasure for the ages. The bottom line is that technology has watered down AGNC's ability to challenge the game's greatest. Tiger proved it in 1997, and again in 2001... Oh, and then there was 2002. My point is the changes by Fazio were subtle to the bystander, significant to the gallery and player, and made for a test of golf that is once again a genuine challenge. Sure, approaches on flats that were once contoured leave for a level lie, etc, etc, etc. Still, the course looked grand, and in the future I think that many of you will look back on the work of Fazio at ANGC and consider it both necessary and beautiful.

[Tim_Weiman]

Comtngolf,

It might be helpful if you explained what a "true test of golf is".

As for your suggestion that we will look back and consider Fazio's work "necessary", I beg to differ.  Can't we already see that such work simply fuels the senseless golf technology arms race?

Personally, I don't think it is fair to blame Fazio for the poor example Augusta National has set, but we shouldn't offer praise either.  

[John_McMillan]

My evaluation of the changes at Augusta National is that they worked OK in increasing some of the resistance to scoring on some of the par 4's.  They're not that big a deal either upside or downside to me.  The bigger issue is evaluating the changes to Augusta National as a whole - and there I think there's more to pick at, but Fazio is certainly not to blame for the direction the membership at Augusta National has taken over the last 30 years.  The "selling" of the changes has certainly contained some hyperbole - and Fazio has some guilt in contributing to that.  The bottom line to me is that there are probably 50 architects in the US who could have done a similar job to what Fazio did at ANGC, and the club probably got value very close to what they paid for the design work.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()