Controversial Designers (7/24/09)
In my article entitled “Analysis of Golf Course Rankings”, I mentioned that I noticed a very big discrepancy
between the raters when it came to Tom Fazio courses and Seth Raynor courses. Because of these large
variances between the rating gurus, I have labeled the courses in question as controversial. It should be pointed
out that the courses themselves are not controversial; rather the rating agencies wildly different opinions are what
is controversial.
Furthermore, in my “Analysis” article I state that it is my opinion that if a golfer likes the glamour, glitz, and beauty
they should refer to the Golf Digest rankings and if they enjoy some of the finer points of golf course architecture
they should use the Golf Magazine lists. Perhaps the biggest reason I made those comments comes from the
information I derived from analyzing the aforementioned lists. For example, Golf Magazine and Golfweek ranked
the following Seth Raynor courses very highly; Shoreacres, Camargo, and Yeamans Hall. While the Golf Digest
rankings didn’t even have these courses in their Top 100 with the exception of Shoreacres, which they ranked
74th. In addition to these Seth Raynor courses, Golf Magazine and Golfweek rated the following courses very
highly, while Golf Digest didn’t rate them at all; Alister Mackenzie’s Pasatiempo, Red Lawrence’s Desert Forrest,
Raynor and MacDonald’s Yale course, Mackenzie and Hunter’s Valley Club of Montecito, Tillinghast’s Baltusrol
(Upper) course, and Flynn’s Homestead (Cascades) course. My research leads me to believe that all of these
courses are classic golf courses that embody the subtle nuances and brilliant architectural concepts of golf’s
“Golden Era”.
On the flip side, Golf Digest and Golfweek seem to regard the following courses very highly while Golf Magazine
seems to disregard them: Tom Fazio’s Victoria National, Dallas National, Galloway National G.C, Flint Hills,
Estancia Club, Sage Valley, Hudson National, The Quarry at La Quinta, Eagle Point and Wade Hampton is rated
by Golf Magazine but nowhere near as highly as it as rated by Golf Digest. To further muddy the waters, Golf
Magazine ranks the following Tom Fazio courses; Trump National, and World Woods (Pine Barnes) and Golf
Digest does not. So, it is not as simple as Golf Magazine doesn’t like Tom Fazio.
So, something is wrong. What could it be? Now I understand that everyone has their own tastes, but to vary so
wildly, what gives? Okay…maybe the raters have different tastes.
To test this, let’s look at their Top Ten courses.
Golf Digest’s Top Ten Golf Magazine’s Top Ten
Augusta National Pine Valley
Pine Valley Cypress Point
Shinnecock Hills Augusta National
Cypress Point Pebble Beach
Oakmont Shinnecock Hills
Pebble Beach Oakmont
Merion (East) Merion (East)
Winged Foot (West) Sand Hills
Fishers Island Pacific Dunes
Seminole National Golf Links
It is very apparent from these lists that both of these magazines seem to rate these courses very close to one
another. Augusta is #1 according to Ron Whitten and Golf Digest, but Travelin’ Joe rates it 3. Pretty darn close!
Pine Valley is Joe Passov’s favorite, while it ranks #2 for Golf Digest. No big deal. Meanwhile Sand Hills, Pacific
Dunes and National Golf Links show up on Golf Magazine’s Top Ten, but not on Ron Whitten’s list. Not to worry,
they are ranked 13, 14, and 15, respectively by Mr. Whitten. On the flip side, Winged Foot (East), Fishers Island,
and Seminole are in Golf Digest’s Top Ten and are ranked 38th, 20th, and 12th by Golf Magazine. These
rankings are a little more divergent, but they are still relatively close.
Given this, I can not conclude that these raters have wildly divergent tastes. So what gives?
Perhaps the answer lies within the architects themselves. Let’s start with Seth Raynor.
Seth Raynor hadn’t even played golf when he was hired by Charles Blair MacDonald to help him lay out some of
the holes at National Golf Links. The thing that the history books suggest is the MacDonald was extraordinarily
impressed with Raynor’s seriousness and dependability as well as his competency as an engineer. CB
MacDonald is therefore known as Raynor’s mentor. MacDonald himself is known for having built, arguably, the
perfect golf course in National Golf Links. He traveled the world, all the while taking notes on the great courses
and holes he saw. He took these notes and built a repertoire of holes that used again and again throughout his
golf course design career.
When Raynor struck out on his own in 1914 he took many of the things he learned from MacDonald, including his
“template” for golf course design work. Many of Raynor’s holes are shorter holes that use interesting green
layouts to defend the hole. He also uses the slopes and angles of the green combined with strategically planned
bunker placement to punish wayward approach shots and to increase the difficulty and treachery of the putts.
So, why would Golf Digest appear to not appreciate Seth Raynor’s work? To answer this, I think we need to take
a step away from Golf Digest and simply say, why would a golf course connoisseur downgrade Seth Raynor’s
work? Two things jump out at me in this regard…
#1—He appears to have taken many of his ideas concerning golf course design from CB MacDonald.
#2—He uses the same holes over and over again.
To put these two points into a coherent argument which would justify someone’s negative opinion on Seth Raynor
courses, I think it would be fair to say that Mr. Raynor lacked the originality and creativity necessary to be regard
as a truly great golf course designer.
Now to be 100% transparent, I don’t believe that at all. In fact, I have had the pleasure to play one of Seth Raynor
courses and I loved it!!! And I think his, and Mr. MacDonald’s, template might be one of the greatest
breakthroughs in golf course design history and I have ranked them both as two of the best golf course architects
in history. Nevertheless, I think the argument against him is valid and I can see the logic behind the argument.
Now for Tom Fazio….
Frankly, the discrepancies regarding Tom Fazio’s courses confound me. He is without question one of the most
prolific golf course designers in the history of the game. However, Golf Magazine and Golf Digest rated an almost
completely different list of Fazio courses in what appears to be an almost completely different way. The only
conclusion I can reach in this regard is that I have to play them all and come to my own opinion. I probably won’t
discover a golf course architectural breakthrough, but I will have a boat load of fun!!!
Nevertheless, in an attempt to get to the bottom of this dilemma I did a lot of research. The following is an excerpt
from Ian Andrew’s blog “Caddyshack”. Mr. Andrew is a golf course architect and writer that I have a great deal of
respect for and I urge anyone reading this to check out his work. Anyway, here is what he says about Mr. Tom
Fazio…
“(Tom Fazio created a) very player friendly style that would define him as an architect…Tom preferred defining
bunkers and a clear path to the hole. Tom seemed to be more concerned with hiding cart paths and grading tie-
ins than he was about creating dilemmas. If anything, much of Tom’s work can be characterized as too safe and
too fair to be great. Mackenzie always theorized that great holes began with initial controversy until they were
understood - Fazio avoided controversy in favour of making a beautiful player friendly landscape.
The ultimate expression of his ability and style was Shadow Creek built in 1989. The course built for Steve Wynn
in the desert and was a remarkable undertaking. Fazio began with a flat featureless site and moved millions of
yards of sand. He then planted a massive amount of pine trees and landscaped the entire property to create a
lush oasis with ravines and wonderful rolls where you could only see the mountains in the distance but none of the
flat desert right next door. The course is stunningly beautiful.
When asked about Tom as a designer, Bill Coore once remarked that he thought Fazio was a remarkable
“Landscape Architect.”
Hmmm…a remarkable landscape architect, too fair to be great, player friendly, stunningly beautiful. Sounds awful
to me!!! Obvious sarcasm.
Like I said, I simply must play more Fazio designs to see who’s got it right. My home club is a Tom Fazio design
and I love it. I rank him as a Top Ten architect. Shadow Creek is a unanimous gem. But the hugely divergent
opinions regarding his courses do not make sense. I will begin playing them ASAP in order to form my own
opinion.
If anyone has opinions of Raynor or Fazio, reach out to me. I am all ears.
***As an aside, Golfweek ranks all of the aforementioned courses either in their classic or modern lists in a very
non-controversial manner. However, their ranking of Wannamoisette, Wildhorse, and Chambers Bay appear to
be controversial. I guess I’ll have to play them to get to the bottom of it all!!!
6/7/2010...well, I think I discovered the discrepancy between Golf Digest and the other rating entities regarding
the Tom Fazio courses mentioned. Golf Digest seems to favor difficult courses in their ratings. Therefore, the
notoriously difficult Fazio courses seem to get a bit of an edge in the Golf Digest system.
8/5/2010...EDIT Again...it also appears Tom Fazio builds his golf courses around his clients desires and wishes
rather than entering into a project with a preconceived idea about what he is going to build. Therefore, his
portfolio is wildly divergent and each and every course might appeal to different people for different
reasons.