The option free hole by G. Shackelford

[George Pazin]

Interesting points.

But how does one make the jump that, even if the architect is solely responsible, he is infallible & not subject to criticism?

If anything, constant excuse making for shoddy results seems to imply a far greater belief in architect infallibility and being above reproach.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

I don't know what you mean by "shoddy" results.

Results can only be evaluated in the context of the intent.

If an architect is going to be the party solely repsonsible for the outcome, mustn't he then be deemed infallible or inviolate in the realm of his artistic/architectural decisions ?

Certainly, you can't hold someone accountable for the finished product if artistic/architectural decisions are made by third parties.

All to often there seems to be a rush to judgement rather than the pursuit of discovery.

It seems difficult to believe that if the intent was to restore the 8th hole at Riviera, that the result could come out so much different than intended, without there being mitigating factors which caused the deviation.  All I'm trying to do is ascertain what they might have been.  Hence, I posed a number of prudent questions.  What harm is there in seeking more information and pursuit of the truth.

Fazio was villified for Merion, yet few had seen the work and the ultimate results.  It appears that a material flaw in the bunkers wasn't even discussed on this site, which chose to focus on debatable issues fueled by a lack of the facts.

Geoff may be 1000 % correct, I'm just trying to understand how this could have happened, and to what degree the responsibility for same must be alloted.

Are any additional projects on the drawing board at Riviera ?

[Slag_Bandoon]

... when we dilute the criticism of the work with personal attacks, we distract from the substance of the critique... .

I usually agree with that doctrine but...

  SL, When one lives by the sword, one dies by the sword.  Fazio thrives symbiotically on publicity; a publicity that panders to him at many levels.  His hold on the market is a bloated cliche'.  Geoff has presented an article, bold and in-his-face that he felt needed to be said.  The sad part is that it's not in Golf Digest or its ilk for non-GCArchitect fanatics to access and learn.  

Geoff, it is a better article without an editor to tame it and socially groove it.  It is an emotional statement that comes from your broken heart.  Stand tall.  One question though, are the members happy with it?  I have almost no concern for the pro game or their comments, except maybe rooting for Corey Pavin, so what do real golfers think of the "new and improved" changes?  (Please pardon that oxymoron.)

Richard, I just bought myself a new baseball mitt and am driving mylady crazy with throwing a baseball into it while watching tv.  I'm 10 years old again.  My girl hates me and I got a mitt.  I'm happy.  

This might be a tired theme for me to present but my rants about "Worth Ethic" never really connected to anything but the rapage of natural land until this article.  It's not just the fact that it's old stuff (priceless and irreplacable art?) being manipulated, it's the attitude of the Fazio troup proclaiming reverance for George Thomas while dancing on his grave behind a threadbare veil of modernization.  

Geoff, Nice website and your new book has been preordered.  

  

[Tony Ristola]

March 4, 2002 thread:

Fazio Golf Course Designers on the Restoration of Riviera Country Club
Tom Marzolf

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/YaBB.cgi?board=GD1&action=display&num=1015289234

[ChipOat]

Pat Mucci:

You say you don't understand why Geoff Shack wasn't consulted by the powers-that-be at Riviera?

You and I have had this discussion a couple of times.  Forgive me for sounding presumptuous, but if there's anyone I've ever met who I would think DOES understand, that person is you.

Am I missing something from our prior conversations?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

There is a difference.

I'm just a lowly member.

I am not an expert on any specific architect, nor have I written books on architecture and architects.

Geoff is an expert or at least a recognized authority on Thomas, the architect responsible for Riviera, and Geoff belongs to Riviera.

If I was an expert or the recognized authority on Wilson, Tucker, Von Hagge, Travis and Emmett, and had written published books on those architects and belonged to a club that one of them designed, I would imagine that I would be consulted with respect to any proposed changes.
And, if I wasn't approached, I'm sure that I'd offer my services.  And, if my services were rejected, I'd offer a position paper to the club.  And, if that was rejected, I'd offer a position paper to the architect.  Knowing in my heart of hearts that I did all I could to restore, protect and preserve the architecture.

I just don't understand how a nationally known figure, an expert, a recognized authority on Thomas got left out of the loop at Riviera.

Why wouldn't the members take Geoff's banner to the owner and architect ?

I'm puzzled by the entire matter.

[Lynn Shackelford]

Pat M.
This has been discussed many times here.  Riviera is owned by a corporation based in Japan.  The owner speaks little English and lives in Japan.  The members have no ownership, and no rights except to play and use the course at management's discretion.  Management does not like or respect most of the member's, only those who tell management how great they are.  Please try and remeber this:  THE MEMBERS HAVE NO SAY IN ANYTHING.  They can be dropped without cause.
One other thought, the members for the most part call the 8th hole Fazio/Marzof renovation a moustache on the Mona Lisa.  What can they do about it?  See above.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lynn Shackelfor,

Who owned Riviera before the current owners ?
Were the members rights as limited under the prior owner or did they encourage member participation ?

Have the members ever threatened a mass resignation in order to gain some sort of say in the affairs of the club ?

I would think that the prospect of loosing substantial revenue and creating financial hardship would get someones attention.

It certainly doesn't sound like a good situation or one that can be remedied in the near future.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Why don't you lead a mass resignation of the members of GCGC over that completely botched bunker Doak did on #17? That might create some financial hardship and get someone's attention, don't you think? I think LIRR and SARR at least might go along with you. I don't even think you'd need to ask them--I think they'd just go with you without an explanation.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I nominate TE Paul's last post as the early favorite for post of the year. It is the funniest post I have read since Tom Egan's post from a while back, when he warned Pat that some flaming ass was impersonating him on GCA.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Lynn Shackelford informs us that change will be difficult if not impossible at Riviera, a non-member owned club.

Changes have already taken place at GCGC and I would suspect that # 17 was one of several catalysts.

But, perhaps you're more familiar with GCGC than I am.

Tom MacWood,

You're so whiney and petty.
You didn't know what you were talking about with respect to GCGC so you attempted a diversion through personal attacks.
You asked for criticism of modern day architects, but didn't want any if it was other than Rees or Fazio, so you continued with the personal attacks.  It's beyond infantile, it's....
femininely malevolent.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat/LIRR
By my count that is three days in a row that you've gotten up on the wrong side of the bed.

Do you have a good handle on the architectural evolution of GCGC? The holes in question, could you give a short explanation of how they've evolved, from the original Emmet course to the changes Travis made to any other changes (post or pre WWII) to the changes Doak made? And the reasons for the changes over the years if you know?