[Lou_Duran]

The dogpile on Fazio is unwarranted,  yet so predictable.  You guys are suckers for low hanging fruit.

The issue is Tom Fazio and what he represents to some folks.  Though we like to feather ourselves as keen students of golf architecture, I suspect that the label or brand drives much of our disposition and what we choose to see.  In some respects, I wish we were back in the days when few knew or cared about who designed the course.  Partisanship is not peculiar to politics, but it has always been my position that most things are political anyways.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou, I tend to agree! IF CC had proposed those bunkers in the photoshop, it would be considered a Coup-de-grace around here.

More to the point, every renovation has some value decisions to make.  Frankly, the Seth Raynor style isn't really consistent with free flowing dunes sites.  Jim Urbina's original photo garners the comment that it embodies classic architecture.  I don't think so.  That plain shaped bunker of Raynor's looks out of place to me, as does the Rees replacement in later photos. 

Frankly, it looks too shallow to even be representative or Raynor's best work (where the bunkers are usually deeper)  I have no idea how much control Raynor had over construction, but from that photo alone (obviously never saw the whole course in original form) I suspect he didn't have as much as he might have out east, closer to home.

While I understand the desire to respect the original style, even if long gone, it strikes me that the sum total of the above at least made the consideration to go more "natural" to be put on the table.  And, hiring a top architect, with talented associates from (I think) California, to oversee the process isn't totally wacked out either.  Is that a better choice than, say, an overloaded Gil Hanse who might be more focused on Doral and Brazil literally?

Just my thoughts.

[Brent Hutto]

Just to point out that minority opinions exist, the full-on Raynor style to my eye has about the least appealing visuals of any major "old dead guy" architect. And I totally agree with Jeff's comment that a truly Raynoresque set of bunkers and greens on the MPCC site would be rather unattractive.

But what do I know. I've never found the typical Fazio visuals (at least as I think of them) to be all that offensive. Repetitive, often. A bit too flashy and look-at-me for my taste. But he tends to create courses that range from unobjectionable (any number of examples) to extremely compelling and eminently playable (Sage Valley) for my game and visual sense.

What we think of at Raynor's style is just as repetitive as Fazio could ever be. And the intention was to achieve certain playing features at the expense of laying a very heavy hand of the architect on the land.

[Howard Riefs]

Or since they didn't hire him "MPC doesn't give a s*#t about Tom Doak."

Tom didn't bid on the project so we can't fault MPCC for that transgression. 

As for not giving the job to Urbina...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brent,

To be fair, I think (and agree) that Raynor is lauded for his ability to put those same 18 holes on a variety of landscapes amazingly well.  Faz is probably more heavy handed due to bulldozers, budgets, etc. to get his nearly all 18 holes in a pretty valley setting.

As I said in a thread a few weeks ago, no architectural style simply fits everywhere, and every situation, and this strikes me as one of those situations.....so I can see the value judgment to "upgrade" the style, even if changing a somewhat classic course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Or since they didn't hire him "MPC doesn't give a s*#t about Tom Doak."

Tom didn't bid on the project so we can't fault MPCC for that transgression.  

As for not giving the job to Urbina...

I will save Lou the trouble of typing "thanks for proving my (Lou's) point so soon and succinctly."

[Jim_Kennedy]

Just to point out that minority opinions exist, the full-on Raynor style to my eye has about the least appealing visuals of any major "old dead guy" architect. And I totally agree with Jeff's comment that a truly Raynoresque set of bunkers and greens on the MPCC site would be rather unattractive.

But what do I know. I've never found the typical Fazio visuals (at least as I think of them) to be all that offensive. Repetitive, often. A bit too flashy and look-at-me for my taste. But he tends to create courses that range from unobjectionable (any number of examples) to extremely compelling and eminently playable (Sage Valley) for my game and visual sense.

What we think of at Raynor's style is just as repetitive as Fazio could ever be. And the intention was to achieve certain playing features at the expense of laying a very heavy hand of the architect on the land.

Uh-huh - and this is so ugly it makes me want to gag. 

[Brent Hutto]

Jim,

If there were no green or bunker there, no golf hole at all, that would be gorgeous.

[Jim_Kennedy]

...and heaven forbid that anyone would be forced to play this hole, so obviously 'forced' upon the land.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

My dislike (if its that) of the MPCC photo is that the Raynor front bunker doesn't appear to be executed well, including lack of typical depth.  Your photo sure exhibits the typical depth of a Raynor bunker, plus some attractive bunker shaping.  

So, while your example does show the potential for Raynor style to exist Oceanside, to me, the question of whether MPCC was his best work and thus unquestionably worthy of restoration (especially since it has already been changed at least once) is still open.

Like I have postulated before, if Ross did 400 courses, is it "mandatory" or even wise to restore all of them? They top 10% or 40?  The top 25% or 100?

Obviously, case by case would trump any ratios, but a previously remodeled course that seems to cry out for making more use of the dunes (in part because we have since seen the difference between a Pacific Dunes vs. Sand Pines or Torrey Pines (other examples of standard style forced on great sites) is certainly a valid discussion, worthy of more than pithy one liners......

[Brent Hutto]

Jim,

If I wanted to go off and spend the morning searching the web I could find any number a beautiful holes created by Tom Fazio over the years. Of course some people would shit their pants anyway just because of his name being attached but I'm sure you're not one of those.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,

It is worthy of a valid discussion, and my 'pithy' remark is, at least in my mind, a tersely cogent contribution; a rebuttal to the notion that a  "truly Raynoresque set of bunkers and greens on the MPCC site would be rather unattractive".


Brett,

I have never gagged whilst playing a beautiful Fazio course.   

[Brent Hutto]

Of course just to prove how little I know, I've seen plenty of trees on golf courses that I thought were just fine.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Of course just to prove how little I know, I've seen plenty of trees on golf courses that I thought were just fine.

I'll go out on a limb and agree with you.

[George Pazin]

I personally find the equally predictable "You wouldn't be complaining if Tom D did this" or "You wouldn't be complaining if C&C did this" FAR FAR more annoying and offensive than the alleged constant Fazio bashing.

Why not try to focus on what architects actually DO, than your own fantasies about how "we" would react to what someone else DIDNT DO?

PERIOD.

[Garland Bayley]

"I was asked by the membership to consider revisions for the seventy-year old Camargo."

"I traveled down to Cincinnati and spent several hours walking around the course. Memories of my earlier days playing there waltzed through my mind, and I was once again fascinated with Mr. Raynor's ingenuity in carving out such a dynamic course."

I was finally escorted to Camargo's boardroom, where a group of distinguished business executives requested my views regarding what was wrong with their course. Sitting in my khakis among these elite gentlemen, I extolled the virtues of Seth Raynor's design, but the committee kept insisting I tell them the problems I saw. Finally, I bluntly told them that as far as I could tell, the only thing wrong with Camargo was its membership, and they would be wise to leave Mr. Raynor's course alone."

Pete Dye, Bury me in a Pot Bunker

As the saying goes, it take genius to recognize genius.

Tom Doak, Bill Coore, Gil Hanse all trained under Pete Dye. It seems to me insulting to them to propose they would go in and do the work and we would all fawn at their feet. Perhaps people doing so "just don't get it."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()