...not in the sense of opening dozens of courses every year, but in his approach to new and existing courses?

Fazio appears to be loathed by classic course afficianados in America for his "one size fits all philosophy" - he appears to impose his own style on existing courses rather than tailoring his approach to the golf course at hand. Examples include Merion and Riviera.

That said, Fazio appears to be capable of building some very good new courses. Nothing earth-shattering, but with Fazio you seem to get a consistently good product.

Cashmore could be accused of the same thing - he has done some excellent new work in the past decade (The Dunes, 13th Beach), but the major criticism of his renovation work appears to be his inability/unwillingness to make the changes stylistically compatible with what is already there.

Is this a fair appraisal?

What a stretch that comparison is!

Fazio is only loathed by a small bunch of characters on GCA - hardly the be all and end all of golf architecture. He is sought out by many... developers, by owners of classic courses, by the USGA etc. etc...proof of his success is in his workload and fee he recieves for projects. I believe his work at Merion has been well recieved by the membership although perhaps Riviera has not been so successful (howevefr again don't rely on GCA for a definative opinion on how his work is viewed at large).

He also creates by and large work of a consistently high standard (have you ever played any Fazio courses by the way??)

Now I know and like Tony Cashmore but his body of work in either new courses and renovation hardly compare, I am sure he would be more than flattered by the comparison though.

Nice try.

henry,

I'm afraid I have never set foot onto a Fazio course and can't comment on the comparison.
However I am pleased to see a thread started on an architect without once mentioning the "C" word. 8)

No. But I I have always thought that Ross Perret is the 21st century Australian version of C.H. Allison. What do you think?

Mothy.

Nice to see Henry finds it easier to catch the equatorial fish. One thing I will ask in Henry's defence, is Fazio more of a commercial success - sells real estate and memberships by producing pretty if inoffensive golf courses, than a critical success (this of course is mostly made up of people who post on GCA, which obviously includes you).

JJ

Is Fazio really a vandal?

Fazio does have a but of variety in his work. His mountain courses are well received, 'Wade Hampton' (Nth Carolina) being the best, with 'Champion Hills'(N.C) being well spoken of. Newer courses like 'Estancia' show variety to some extent, more because of the site than the design principals.

Whether his redesign work is as bad as we hear on GCA I can't really answer. The problem may be there is more bad redesign work than there is good, and this is across the board, including many designers. Redesigning, reconditioning & restoring golf courses seems to be more difficult than new work to some extent.

Fazio's life time legacy will be his body of housing estate courses. My view of Fazio is tainted merely because of that, although I realise it is a sign of the times.

Fazio is only loathed by a small bunch of characters on GCA

One of the quotes of the year! Speak to all (not the referred ones, ALL) his past clients.

Yes, Fazio is responsible for some awesomely good courses, and is better than most of the best archies in the world at properly matching his designs to his client's needs. Despite being a part Fazio basher, I do like a lot of his original work. It is easy of course to bash reno work, so I apologise for the cop out.

He is good for the industry, but is a divisive and controversial figure. Criticisms are his budgets (not all fully wanted by the clients), and his need for setting holes so completely framed that he adds major distance between greens and next tees, making many of his tracks too long and difficult to walk. A common and nationally held concern long before GCA came into being. He has many detractors in all fields of golf, not just among the tiny treehouse of GCA.

Anyone is is on a hiding to nothing doing redesign work on any top course.

Anyone is is on a hiding to nothing doing redesign work on any top course.

Frosty, you've hit the nail on the head. Whoever is doing the work on the top tracks should be concerned with

restoration

, not redesign. Thats why blokes like Cashmore get slammed, because he doesn't understand the importance of distinguishing between the two terms.

Of course it depends what you're restoring to. I'd say most of the best courses have many different 'eras', so to make a judgement of what you should be restoring to is fraught with danger anyway, as to some you won't be restoring to their memory of the course at its best. In the end the many different eras are possibly a reflection of the fashions of the day, and fashion has no place in golf course design. Or perhaps I should say it's the true ideas and feel below the fashion that must be maintained and restored to rather than the fashion.

Having played over a dozen of his courses ranging from early in his career - Butler National (Chicago), Emerald Dunes (Florida) to some of his latter work Sandy Lane (Barbados), Pinehurst #8 I am an unabashed Fazio fan compared to some his contemporaries. I have not played any of his restorations though. His courses, especially from the championship tees are well framed and you generally can see what the architect was trying to achieve. Money has been no object in many cases, but that is the era and the American way. As well, I'm a critic of golf-carts and real estate development driven golf courses which is the predominant theme. Fazio definitely has name on a bunch of courses that fit this bill, but when I compare his courses to his contemporaries it is not a "photo-finish". He is panels of fencing ahead of the pack.

T-roo,

Who do you men by "his contempories"?

Apparently, Dallas National is held very highly among those that have seen it so far. It is arguably among the top half dozen new private clubs opened in the US since the turn of the decade.

I have no doubt that as a visiting player to the US one day, I'd no doubt enjoy immensely playing half of his top 10 or so efforts. He isn't as famous as he is for nothing. I just don't like statements that automatically rebuff any criticism of him whatsoever, no matter how constructive it may be.

If the world's number one golfer can be picked apart and analysed for criticisms fairly, then why not the world's highest profile architect?

I meant the other popular "name" architects that have dominated the North American scene over the last two decades such as Dye, Trent Jones Jnr, Rees Jones, Nicklaus, Palmer/Seay and Maples.

Getting back to the original point, I agree that there are architects that seem to do excellent work on existing courses. And that the archies that design the best courses themselves don't always tend to fall in that group of good operators on existing tracks.

I disagree that anyone working on an existing course is simply waiting to cop a hammering. Ron Pritchard gets a lot of extremely high praise, good press and great feedback from members where he has worked on their courses. It just takes sensitivity, identifying the course's need for improvement, restoration or evolutionary renovation, it's representative style, and an avoidance of a tendency to want to leave your own trademark. The course is bigger than the archie. Mike Clayton's (forget what we biased Vics think, ask the clubs involved) work has been enthusiastically received at various clubs here in Victoria.

Henry's original point doesn't criticise Fazio's courses. On the contrary, it uses their high reputation to make the suggestion of difference between the blank canvas and attending to an existing work.

ttitheridge,

you certainly get around more than the average aussie - Ron pritchard!!!!- I doubt many americans let alone australians would be familiar with his work! (I suspect you are in the golf business in some way?)

I can also understand the difference between Fazio's new and remodel work and certainly agree with fair critisism where warranted (although you will rarely see reasoned critism of Faio's work on GCA).

Work on an existing course is difficult - particularly where the course is exceptional. It takes a lot more time and patience than designing a new one from scratch...and when you are making so much money on new courses perhaps you are loath to spend the time required to do a good job - and it shows so easily.

I still just think the comparison between Fazio and Cashmore was a bit of a stretch - I mean really! (unless it is based on looks of course)

Sincerely,
The Equatorial Fish.

Keep in mind, the question was asked if Cashmore is the Fazio of Australia. Not, is Cashmore a Fazio. Big difference. And quite correct probably and worthy of discussion without being a stretch. We have a tiny and low profile archie industry in Australasia compared to North America, so any such comparison will have a great divide in scale, so we need to transpose it to our more humble stature and weight.

I think the only original point asked about the merits of the two guys' work on new and existing courses, and the parallels seem to be there without too great a disagreement thus far.

Work on an existing course sure is difficult. It is a minefield, because not only does the course have a character that the architect didn't give it, it also has a mob of existing members who have their own feelings. But keep in mind, the number of archies who DO do highly regarded and admirable work on existing courses shows it can be done. And so does NOT give Cashmore, Fazio or anyone else an easy excuse to blame criticism on the inherent trials and tribulations of dicing with this political beast.

TT,

But keep in mind, the number of archies who DO do highly regarded and admirable work on existing courses shows it can be done. And so does NOT give Cashmore, Fazio or anyone else an easy excuse to blame criticism on the inherent trials and tribulations of dicing with this political beast.

Which architects in America have done highly respected redesign work on big profile and highly ranked courses. Surely the fact that the work of Ron Pritchard, Gil Hanse et al, is better recieved is partlybecause they worked on lower profile courses that people have less attachment to, whereas Fazio has worked on 4 of the top 10 courses in America -courses that people are more sensiteve about. Are there any architects that have done redesign work that has been unanimously praised on courses as high profile as Merion, Riviera, Augusta National and Pine Valley?

Jeffrey,

Gil Hanse was the consulting architect at Merion, before the booted out in favour of Fazio. Hanse was slowly restoring the "white faces", but didn't get the finish the job.

I believe that Crenshaw and Coore did some redesign work at Riviera.

Neither copped major criticism, although C&C apparantly changed the grass composition of the green surfaces which didn't work too well (not strictly golf architecture).

Henry,

Both C&C and Hanse must have recieved some criticism if they were pulled off the job and replaced by someone else. The point I am making is that TT wrote "But keep in mind, the number of archies who DO do highly regarded and admirable work on existing courses shows it can be done," yet there are no real examples of anyone at all restoring a Top 20 course and getting off scot free. THe profile of the courses that Ron Pritchard or Brian Silvaredesigns, as compared to Tom Fazio redesigns, makes it alot easier to escape critism.

BTW I personally think the Fazio bunkers at Merion look terrible but I think it is unfair to 1. Criticise them without seeing them and knowing the full story about there construction (and of course remebering that aesthetic apeal is to some extent a personal taste), and 2. Pick out the negatives in every other job that he does because you dont like what he did on one job.

Ron Pritchard was mentioned before for being one who gains acclaim for his work on existing courses. Ron actually does more high profile restoration/reconstruction work than he does new work.

Ian Andrews from Canada is also another who does high quality restoration work. Ian is somebody who actually prefers restoration work over any other.

These guys have both made it a bit of a speciality, which helps in the long run.

Fair point Jeffrey. The contract for say, ANGC was going to cause public criticism of some nature, no matter who got it and how they did it. So I don't cane Fazio for that. Another variable is the relevant club's requests in the first place at each job.

My point on Ron Pritchard is that he seems to have a striking success rate of pleasing the members, and appeasing both the history buff factions and the everything new is good factions at the clubs he has worked at. Fazio's best credits (even among low profile courses) seems more to do with correcting bad architecture or doing something new and exciting, rather than restorative work.

Still I say again, I think the initial question was harmless enough, and able to be discussed as a hypothetical comparison and parallel thought without too many variables bogging it down in overly deep analysis. If we were to go that deep, most of us here haven't seen any/enough US work to really comment.

Henry, after seeing the Creek Course at 13B, has it changed your view of Cashy being our version of Fazio? If so why?

Jack

Jeffrey

At Merion Hanse, was slowly doing the work because he believed it needed to be done carefully and he was happy to take a few years to do it.
Then,Merion was awarded the U.S Amateur - not sure which year but soon - and the club wanted the bunkers done before the championship.
Hanse told them he couldn't finish them in time and Fazio told them he could do them in 6 months.
He did and screwed them up.
Pity.