RIVIERA: Nissan Open 2007 and Comparing 2007 to 2004 (Photos)

[Michael Kim]

Hello Gentlemen,

It’s been a while since I’ve posted (due to a rigorous and frantic job search since graduation). However, to take my mind off things, I decided to make a return to one of my childhood and home town delights: Riviera Country Club. The last time I visited to take photos was in 2004 and I’ve noticed a lot of subtle and not so subtle changes. They've really cleaned up the bunkers with some new sand and re-scultping some of them. Here are some changes that I really noticed:


ENLARGEMENT OF BUNKER TONGUES

Riviera has always been known for its skillfully crafted bunkers and with its unique and thin tongues. However, I noticed (to my disappointment) that most of the bunkers tongues have been enlarged (16th hole is one of many examples). Most noticeable of this example is the great 6th hole:



6th Hole, 2004

I loved that front bunker with it’s sleek tongue, but I was in for a rude awakening when they disgustingly widened the tongue and added another unnecessary mini-tongue to that bunker on the right of it. Why did they do this? Was it for maintenance issues? Was it because the bunker tongues were eroding away too quickly from wear and tear? I think the 6th hole doesn’t look as great as it used to. I’m a little disappointed that the Riviera managements keeps making these kind of calls.



6th Hole, Present Day


ENLARGEMENT OF GREENS

I noticed that the Riviera has also enlarged some greens (1st, 3rd, 9th, 12th, 17th). I guess this was out of necessity since the course gets so much play from the members and guests. However, I was a little uncomfortable with some of the changes. I point out examples from the 3rd and 12th holes.




12th green, 2004

The 12th hole used to only play 418 yards before the year 2000, and now that it plays in excess if 478 yards, I guess they had to enlarge the green because it was too small to accept long-irons.



12th green, Present Day




3rd green, 2004

The 3rd hole is an awesome hole and the green used to be more circular in shape. Now, they have added some juts to the greens and enlarged it. I’m not too enamored with this and what they also did to the green on the 1st hole. I used to love that classic boomerang shape the 1st hole had, but now with all its unnecessary juts, it just looks kind of wacky.



3rd green, present day.


EXTRAS

I know most of you have seen hundreds of photos of Riviera, but I’ve decided to challenge myself to find some new angles most have never seen. Here are a few:


The 6th hole from the right hand side. You can appreciate the pitch from back to front.


This is the view from the "all the way" back and "had to knock down a house" tee box on the 6th hole. It's almost borderline ridiculous and unfair from this distance.


The 5th hole from the "up the hill" tee box. I'm not totally sold on this tee box. I prefer the angle from down below.


I'm always amazed by this picture of the "all the way" back tee on the 12th hole. I can't believe they found room to put this tee box out here and if you've ever been on site, it is a long walk from the 11th green.


For more photos from the day, go to this link:

http://www.pbase.com/mikekim/riviera2007

[John Kavanaugh]

Michael,

Thanks for the great pics and effort taken to start this thread.  I have to admit that in every other instance I have ever read recapturing green space is considered a good thing.  Also, with time and play don't you think the tongues will erode back to a smaller profile.

[John Kavanaugh]

As far as the back tee on 6 goes...I don't have a problem with a slight dog leg par 3 from 200 yds.  Anything shorter makes it tough to work the ball and from what I can tell the front tee on 6 is still WFO.

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

I know that the greens which have been enlarged are in fact restorations to their original size.  Some of the pros love the course because of its small green targets, but that wasn't Thomas's design ... the greens had been allowed to shrink in the 1930's and 1940's.  The ownership is now committed to restoring Thomas' design with some exceptions, notably adding as much length as possible.

I don't know why the bunker cape was changed on #6.  There is a great picture of it in Thomas' book just prior to seeding, and it was quite narrow then.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom Doak,
What do you think of this, "Restoration" and "Recovery?"

Please don't hold back, an honest assessment only.

Great pics Michael. Call me when you get a chance.

[Matt MacIver]

Fantastic pictures, for someone who's never seen the course they're very helpful in before/after and just in watching it on the tube this weekend.  

Judging ONLY from the posted pictures, I prefer the smallish (2004?) 12th green but the enlarged (original?) 3rd.  

I also don't like that tree encroaching on #6 tee shot, sort of feels out of place.  But note again these comments are just from the pix, really looking forward to seeing more of it this weekend.  

[Kalen Braley]

Is that tree in front of the new tee box at 6 going to be removed?  Perhaps its just how it looks in the picture, but that sure seems a bit crazy to me and very much in play.  If the hole allowed a ground approach maybe a low shot could be played, but it doesn't appear that it does.

[John Kavanaugh]

Kalen,

I don't recall the tree being in play from the back tee.  Even more amazing is that I managed to hit my ball right of the green where OB was lurking.

[rjsimper]

Is that tree in front of the new tee box at 6 going to be removed?  Perhaps its just how it looks in the picture, but that sure seems a bit crazy to me and very much in play.  If the hole allowed a ground approach maybe a low shot could be played, but it doesn't appear that it does.

The hole does not allow a ground approach.  I unintentionally tested that theorem when I played it.

[John Kavanaugh]

I tried as hard as I might to hit my tee shot into the bunker in the middle of the green just like Tommy at Pine Valley.  It is a small target from that back tee.  Probably the best second shot par three in the world.

[Tom Birkert]

John, I succeeded where you failed. However I wasn't trying to do it!

The bunker shot was nigh-on impossible. I'd count yourself lucky, all I did was embarrass myself!

[Scott Szabo]

Don't like #6 from the back tee.  I could see many a ball hitting either of the trees.  

Hopefully, it plays differently than it appears based on the pictures.

For the pros, it should be okay, and I suppose they will be the only ones playing from that tee on a regular basis.  

[Nick Church]

I'm curious.  Does anyone know who managed the changes to the course?

[Kalen Braley]

If the ball actually did come to rest on one of those tongues, that would be a hellavu stance to try to play your next shot. That conjurs up joyous  memories when it took 4 to get out of that bunker behind 16 at PacDunes.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Michael,
Nice work on the photo comparisons,

Tom Doak,
Unfortunately you are not correct with your statement about the green enlargements. Some have reclaimed lost green, but on greens 1, 3, 8, 9, 12, and 13, the Fazio group has added green in places it was never evident in old photos.

Your statement about the ownership is comical. You should know better.

[Jim Nugent]

How does ownership or anyone know exactly what Thomas' original design was?  Did he leave photos or drawings or detailed descriptions?  

More kudos on the photos, Michael, and also the idea for the thread.  You've posted other pictures before, and all have been outstanding.  Hope to see more from you!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

While waiting for at least some sort of response from Tom Doak, I highly suggest reading the following from Geoff Shackelford's website. Not only is it informative, but it proves the points of contention that some of us make when viewing the destruction of Riviera.

Enjoy and absorb.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2007/2/14/revising-riviera.html

[Sean_A]

The enlarged greens look alright, nothing special.  To me the more important issue is the grass around the falloff areas of these greens.  I would prefer to see them cut short.

The bunkering doesn't bother me either.  I prefer the skinny look, but to me the more important questions are maintenace and playability because afterall, neither veersion looks remotely like the original.  Has anybody noticed the back bunker on #6.  That has changed much more than the front!  One thing that is odd about the new bunkers is that there are 3 different looks from the front to the back and then to the side.  They don't flow well as a group.  It sort of reminds me of the 12th at Woking - this bunkering scheme looks like an amateur gave it his best shot.



Ciao