The option free hole by G. Shackelford

[NAF]

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/_wsn/page3.html

I don't know how many have checked out geoff's site but I thought this was interesting..

[JS]

Naf,

Thanks for posting the article, it is very interesting.

Geoff...why don't you say what you really think?

[guest]

I love the comment on Fazio's "vanity-driven...style"

on geoffshackleford.com. now that's priceless.

[Mike_Cirba]

guest;

Have you seen the hole in question?

It's an unmitigated  disaster, from the "optionless" setup, to the goofy green, to the fugliest bunker I've ever seen out on the right.  I am not a golf course architect but I'm not sure how anyone was able to conscientiously reach their hand out to accept a paycheck for this butcher-job.    

Riviera deserved much, much better.  

And personally....guest...(isn't THAT priceless??) wouldn't your really rather take your shots from behind a real name like a man?  

[GeoffreyChilds]

I've seen the revised hole and from my point of view Geoff speaks the truth.  

This is a great essay and a clear example of an editorial opinion from someone who has thoroughly researched the topic in the field and in the library. Given that Geoff is the world's authority on Thomas' work I think that his opinion merits the most serious consideration.

[SPDB!]

Although I agree that the 8th at the Riv was a disaster, part of me can't help but partly agree with what (i presume) was the gist of  "Guest['s]" post. I'd be lying if I said the irony of the cited statement was not lost on me. The substance of the article was compelling enough without having to resort to personal sniping.  

[SPDB!]

I beg your pardon, I meant "was lost on me"  

[Mike_Cirba]

SPDB;

I understand your point, but don't you think Geoff has a little right to be personally peeved?  After all, Riviera is/was his home course.  

Also, you have a hugely successful, high visibility architectural firm running around to various famous classic courses claiming to be doing TRUE "restorations"..."Welcome home George Thomas", "Back to the Future" and all of that unadulterated BS...

Shouldn't they be called on it?  What's unfair about that??

[Tommy_Naccarato]

SPDB,
Have you actualy seen this work in person? Also, was your friend that works for Fazio part of this project?

The work is an abomination, and I think for the Fazio organization to actually think of it as viable work is beyond reproach. Yes, I do have a problem with Fazio & Associates, and the 8th at Riviera is one of the most obvious reasons why. Other then that, his original courses--all of them are good to average. Nothing better then that and nothing worse, as far as the scheme of GREATNESS is concerned.

I have never played a bad one, but I have never played a GREAT one.

I also think you and Guest need to actually tell us what you like about the handicap ramp on the 8th as well as the defined strategy for going right. How about discussing that green?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Between guest and GChilds a lot of sniping going on on this thread.

The non-option option design reminds me of the 18th at Valahala. What about the 18th at Bethpage?

[SPDB]

Tommy - where in my post do i defend the work done? On the contrary, I conceded it was a disaster...no equivocation there. Moreover, I think (as also expressed in my post) that Geoff's piece was compelling. My only quarrel was the personal sniping in the piece, which i think only serves to detract from its quality.

I see where you are going with the association bit, but sadly, I'm afraid, it's irrelevant. I would be making the same comment if the Riviera work was done by Art Hills.

[George Pazin]

I would be making the same comment if the Riviera work was done by Art Hills.

So would Geoff.

What exactly would you suggest? Sanitizing one's criticism so as not to "offend"?

It might be irrelevant to you, but it might also not be to others. We're all big boys here - we can evaluate & judge for ourselves the quality of Geoff's criticism. For me, his opinion regarding Riviera is pretty much beyond reproach.

Maybe Geoff's words will save another course from being restaured.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

I enjoyed the article immensely, and the entire web site as well.  With regard for the sniping, and I am probably not qualified to comment on this since I have gotten awfully personal in my own criticisms, I think the pointed comments about Fazio's company were necessary to the piece.  It shows a pattern of behavior on their part that is not acceptable to the world in which Geoff lives, and that blunt criticism has to be made, that point must come out, and he is right to do that.  Anyone that is concerned for courses of Rivieras stature must make this kind of stand.  In the past, I made fun of Geoff's staunch defense of Riviera, but, the more I learn about this part of the business the more I am astounded by the total lack of respect learned people have for the classic courses.  

David Fay in a Golfweek article said that the reason people are critising the USGA about the technological advances is not because these critics are concerned for the integrity of the game, but because they are aging critics who are concerned that their generation of heros records and accomplishments are under assault.  That struck mean as one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard.  He must be a French diplomat on weekends.  

When you have people like Fay making these comments, you begin to realize that their is a very serious problem with the people whom have assumed power in the golf world.  They are deficient in thought and deed.  I am becoming more and more of a fan of Geoff's the more I read his work.

[Jeff_Lewis (Guest)]

SPOT ON Geoff!

[Brian Phillips]

Well said Kelly.

BP

[TEPaul]

Should there be a "vanity" connection between the use of that word in Shackelford's article about Riviera's Fazio restoration/Fazio Co, and Shackelford himself?

Nah, no way!

Only if Fazio & Co would be such straight shooters about various and important architectural ramifications as Geoff Shackelford. Somebody's getting the idea of vanity mixed up with what's called the courage of one's convictions.

All Shackelford did in that article is load up a 10 gauge shotgun with truth and fire it directly at what he firmly considers the cause of a really bungled bit of architecture on a course that he probably cares more about than anyone alive (and knows more about too).

That's not even remotely "vanity"--it's conviction. It's about an architectural whatever that Riviera/Fazio work is called gone badly awry, in his opinion. If someone doesn't agree with his opinion tell us all why in an architectural context.

The Shackelford article's architectural commentary includes one extremely interesting fact that is so close to undeniable. The golf architecture of Thomas was multi option oriented, sometimes amazingly clever, nuancy multi option oriented. That, and a particular "look" is what a lot of Thomas's brilliance was based on (great drainage, great natural drainage--I should never forget that too at Thomas's Riviera).

What's close to undeniable is Shackelford's long time contention that great strategies are based on great options and options that aren't used are terrible options--matter of fact they really aren't even options at all although they may appear to be.

Shackelford's often stated progressive connection that great architecture=great strategies; great strategies=great options or multi options that are utilized; and great options that are utilized=high and interesting degrees of temptation. At the bottom of it all really is the fundamental element of temptations!

Shackelford's statistic that not a single competitor in the last Tour tournament at Riviera #8 used that left option that Thomas had done so well and Fazio & Co didn't, is well reasoned and perfect commentary. Not a single tour pro was tempted by it or probably even considered it. Some even laughed openly about it.

That's the best architectural evidence anyone could offer that a great multi-optional golf hole, a great strategic hole got completely botched and frankly the title of the article "the option free hole" is true and about as apropos as it could be.

Shackelford wasn't displaying vanity and he wasn't sniping either. I think he loaded both barrels of a 10 gauge shotgun with real architectural truth and fired it right at the target it should be fired at!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

I appreciate the comments and apologize for any misunderstanding, I should have written of Fazio's aesthetic-heavy or aesthetic-driven design style. A good editor would have questioned that.  It was definitely not meant as some sort of personal shot regarding Mr. Fazio's motivations or why he feels so compelled to put down the work of the old architects (when his entire bunker aesthetic is clearly inspired by evolved MacKenzie and Thomas bunkers). Instead I was saying the one area that is obviously such a strength of Fazio Design (aesthetics, creation of attractive sandy wastes) was not utilized in returning some life to the barranca area. I'm told finances restricted this area, but what was $1.3 million spent on then?

Kelly,
Thanks for the feedback. I preach the Riviera gospel because what's in the ground there really is special.   Hopefully someday it'll survive the current regime and end up with more caring, appreciative and responsible caretakers!

I'm surprised Mr. Fay couldn't come up with anything a bit more substantial than writing his critics off to subscribing to aging, outdated way of thinking. I wonder if his Executive Committee members will feel comfortable with that rationale?
Geoff

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Geoff, Quite obviously he must be prett happy with his executive committee. I just got done reading Jim Auchenbach's column on the usga (no longer in upper-case since they are so ineffective) meeting down in Coronado, and I'm sick to my stomach.

"The modern golf ball is not a problem, and its distance will not be rolled back."--The usga Executive Committee (quite obviously feeling the after-effects of a site-seeing trip to a Tijuana hump-hump bar.)

Impressive group down there in San Diego, Very impressive.

[Greg Ramsay]

I think that a source of Geoff's frustration can be gleaned from the 1996 review of Geoff's great book 'The Captain' by Bradley Klein

"Thanks to Shackelford's meticulous documentation, the precious few remaining examples of Thomas' distinctive flair can now be preserved and restored.”

Unfortunately, the extensive body of work that Geoff has compiled on Thomas and Riviera has been totally disregarded in this REVISION...hardly a restoration.

Greg Ramsay
www.barnbougledunes.com

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

I lost confidence in Fay quite a few years ago when he revealed in an interview that golf was not his favorite sport!! (baseball is)

Do you think it is asking too much of the head man of the usga to have golf as the sport he feels most passionate about??

[ForkaB]

Gary

I think that Fay was just being honest, in both his remarks.  Per the former one, I am very much of the opinion that lost-glory-days-I used-to-be-able-to-keep-it-up-with-(insert name of favorite pro here)-nostalgia is at the heart of much of the desire to roll back the game.  As to the second one, if I could somehow will my 56-year old body to be able to play baseball at the relative level that I can currently play golf (6 handicap), I'd trade my Titanium in for a good piece of hickory, my soft spikes for some razor sharp blades out of Tiger Cobb's evil warehouse, and my non-existent glove for a finely worn-in-with-spit piece of leather.  I think we only play golf as much as we do adn love it as much as we do because it's the only sport we can play, with any street cred and any degree of skill and dignity, as we get older.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Rich,


I am not questioning Fay's honesty, rather the quality of his thinking.  At 42 years old, I could care less about my childhood hero's accomplishments being superceded by today's stars.  I could not name their records other than maybe Nicklaus's majors.  So, I am a little concerned for older people who would put so much importance in their childhood sports heros.  I hope it is not true.

I think Gary is right.  It seems odd that the top man at the top organization would rather play another sport.  Granted, your point is true for you and I am sure for many, but there are those of us that made a decision early in life to go with golf and have since develop a very strong connection to it as a result, and therefore Fay's comment about baseball does seem strange.  Before I went to golf fulltime in high school I first quit baseball and football, both sports I loved dearly.  And I still wonder if I could have played at least one of those in addition to golf, but I am glad I choose golf becuase it  has made all the difference in my life, both personal and professional.  So, you see, a comment like Fay's would seem odd to someone like me, and I guess maybe Gary has had a similar experience.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

NAF,

The owners are the ultimate custodians of the golf course.

The blame for a disfiguration falls on them for permiting it.

If you owned a classic course and wanted to embark on a restoration, would you accept a design that repressented a radical departure from the architect ?

Allowing a hole, or a golf course to be radically altered in the name of a restoration is the sole fault and responsibility of the owners of the golf course.

In medicine, don't prudent people seek second and even third opinions when they are about to undergo serioius or radical surgery.  The owner should have sought additional opinions.
Isn't the PATIENT ultimately responsible for the decisions concerning their health ?  It's no different for the owner.

When you get something for free, you get what you paid for.

What I don't understand is, with Geoff's vast knowledge of Thomas, Riviera, etc, etc., why didn't he have any imput and why wasn't he consulted ?

[Jeff Mingay]

Why wasn't Geoff consulted at Riviera? I'm far, far removed from the situation. But I can only guess that it has something to do with a twist on the old adage that "knowledge is power." Knowledge is also intimidating to some people with  unjustified egos. Particualry when it's a 29 year old "kid" with all the knowledge.

A sad state of affairs, really.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Pat,
While I agree with your logic of seeking alternative opinions, I disagree with final result. If an architect says they will restore accordingly and fails, some burden must rest with them.

Just as a patient who seeks multiple opinions from experts, is entitled to a malpractice suit if they are disfigured, Geoff is entitled to criticize the man who made the changes.