That said I got into an argument on here last year with someone who said that Fazio is the worst current architect and all his courses are garbage. Where I took exception was that that was his opinion and he was saying it like fact. He wouldn't accept that that was just his opinion.
Sounds like somebody who is insecure in his opinions. So he refuses to debate the issue because his only argument is "my opinion is better than yours".
I love Fazio courses and I think most experts would list him among the "best ever architects" .
Fazio has done some good work but I don't know any experts who would list him as one of the best ever architects. Not even close. Despite all his designs there has never been a Major held at a Fazio course and 2 of his highest profile redo jobs for majors (Inverness and Oak Hill) are being currently redone to remove any traces of the work he did. The industry has shifted away from the kind of courses Fazio designed with their concentration on "framing" the hole and extensive earth moving and more towards a natural approach and imo Golf is all the better for it. He was part of the era of excess that had developers spending far too much on average golf courses which helped make the price of the game sky rocket. It's a hole I believe golf is still trying to dig itself out of.
I'd guess you'd agree that Doak isn't a great architect either as I don't recall a single PGA tournament at one of his courses, let alone a Major.
I've never understood the objection to earth moving, particularly as it usually comes from critics who decry using aesthetics as a benchmark for courses - the natural look is just that: an aesthetic. Furthermore, the "natural" look that Doak demands means that he primarily builds courses in remote rugged locations which is hard to access and thereby very expensive to play and even worse to get to. Hopefully, you don't give him a pass either on the price issue.
Edited by dhc1, 29 November 2017 - 09:06 AM.