[Bob_Huntley]

If any of the contributors to this group would decline a membership at Riviera only because of their perception that the Fazio bunkering is inferior to that of the original architect, then I suggest that we call in Dr. Katz.

If the cost of membership, the use of alternate tees, temporary greens and slow play were irritants that I can understand. However, the course is a gem, the weather outstanding and the owners have spent a lot more money (not necessarily wisely) on the place than ever did the Hathaway Bros.

As a club LACC has it beat, but as a daily test of golf, Riviera is unparalleled.

Bob

[Geoffrey Childs]

Jes

To be fair, Fazio gets as much criticism as any architect on this board.  However, his original designs do get a balanced sets of reviews.  There has been a hell of a lot of support for courses like Victoria National, World Woods, Galloway National, Dallas National, Trump Bedminster, Shadow Creek and quite a few others.  Each discussion of his original work has probably received some negative criticism as well.

I think it is his work on classic golden age courses that has been the lightening rod for criticism.  When someone writes a book openly stating his belief that he can do better and improve on our old masterpieces there is a problem in my mind.  I think he should then build original works and see if they stand the test of time as had an Augusta, Merion, Riviera etc.  Leave those courses alone if he has such distain for them.  I understand that he is doing the deeds dictated by the memberships so he is not all at fault but to my mind he has been painting a mustache on too many Mona Lisa's.

[RJ_Daley]

I never played it, just toured around it in a cart with Tommy, at dusk.  I saw the new Fazio work (very new at that time).  I see it on TV and think that there is still enough of the Thomas flavor of the course to totally enjoy watching, and wishing I could play it once.  

But, to aspire to be a member... no thanks.  As I understand it from Geoffs writings, they have an autocratic and misguided directorship/dictatorship.  Guys with serious golf historic and architectural cred., like Geoff S. and Ben C. and others, can't seem to influence the decisions of the owner/director (whatever he is).  So, why would I want to belong to a club like that, which seems bound to slowly morph, remodel by remodel, into a shadow of its former self.

Besides, who the hell would I play with at a place like that?  I don't think they have too many quarter skins and $2 Nassaus.  

[JESII]

Geoff C,

Point taken on the first paragraph. In hindsight I cannot disagree a bit. The second paragraph is more to my point. I don't want to be in the position of speaking for, or defending, his work because I am really very under-qualified to do so.

Leave those courses alone if he has such distain for them.

What makes you think he has disdain for these courses? In the end he is a businessman. Are there any courses Tom Doak would not touch if asked by the club to do something? How about C&C?

[Bob_Huntley]

I never played it, just toured around it in a cart with Tommy, at dusk.  I saw the new Fazio work (very new at that time).  I see it on TV and think that there is still enough of the Thomas flavor of the course to totally enjoy watching, and wishing I could play it once.  

But, to aspire to be a member... no thanks.  As I understand it from Geoffs writings, they have an autocratic and misguided directorship/dictatorship.  Guys with serious golf historic and architectural cred., like Geoff S. and Ben C. and others, can't seem to influence the decisions of the owner/director (whatever he is).  So, why would I want to belong to a club like that, which seems bound to slowly morph, remodel by remodel, into a shadow of its former self.

Besides, who the hell would I play with at a place like that?  I don't think they have too many quarter skins and $2 Nassaus.  

Dick,

You are missing my point. As an aside, I submitted a thread on GCA some years ago explaining why I would never again pony up an initiation fee to an owner or corporate entity where I intended to play the bulk of my golf. However, if I lived in Pacific Palisades or Santa Monica and my choice of golf was to be between Rancho Park or Riviera, I might change my mind.

As at any club, there are games and then there are some bigger games. I am not sure about the quarter skins though.

[RJ_Daley]

As at any club, there are games and then there are some bigger games. I am not sure about the quarter skins though.

Sir Boab, one thing that fella you know said, that seems quite apropos; "a man's just gots to know his limitations"...
 

[George Pazin]

What makes you think he has disdain for these courses? In the end he is a businessman. Are there any courses Tom Doak would not touch if asked by the club to do something? How about C&C?

Easy questions!

He has written a book in which he expresses something most on here would define as disdain for the golden age courses.

I don't know about Tom D, but I know Pete Dye wouldn't take work at Camargo because he felt the course didn't need anything. I would swear there was at least one course were C&C were consulted and turned down the work because they felt the course didn't need it. I'd guess there's lots of more examples others can remember.

Does Fazio need the work? I doubt it, as far as the money goes. But the cynic in me thinks he/his company is taking work at Riviera, ANGC, etc., for PR reasons.

It's up to everyone else to judge for himself what the results of their work are.

Would it stop me from joining Riviera? Probably not. But it would also probably annoy me a great deal as a member.

[Kalen Braley]

Geoff C,


What makes you think he has disdain for these courses? In the end he is a businessman. Are there any courses Tom Doak would not touch if asked by the club to do something? How about C&C?

Supposedly Tom Doak has been asked by Riviera to make changes but is not interested.  I don't suspect it is a money/fee issue, and if that is the case, why would he turn down this work?

[JESII]

George,

I cannot claim to have read Fazio's book, but could you compare the "disdain" in his book with the "disdain" Doak demonstrated in book?

[George Pazin]

I don't have Fazio's book, but my recollection is that there are/were numerous threads on here when it first came out which quoted him saying golden age courses were overrated and wouldn't have even been built the way they were, had they had today's earthmoving capabilities. (Dave Moriraty is the expert on Fazio's book, btw .)

As for Tom's book, I'm not aware of him ever expressing anything remotely approaching disdain for classic courses. If anything, I think his books repeatedly look to such courses as lessons in gca.

[JESII]

An honest question...is there any way for me out of this thread???

[Mike_Cirba]

BTW, Jim...

Coore and Crenshaw were asked to do the renovations at Merion.

My understanding is that they refused in a very gentlemanly, but very firm manner.

[JESII]

Is there a WHITE FLAG  emoticon?

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Is there a WHITE FLAG  emoticon?

 

Jim,

Which brings up an interesting point which I've heard Tom Doak mention...

Is it better for architects who love the classics to walk away when they smell "renovation" instead of restoration or preservation when they know that the owners are just going to find another architect who might not be as sensitive or skillful?

I sense that's why Doak decided to do renovation work at places like Atlantic City, even though I think he's clearly looking to focus on original work these days.

I'll let you go now before Moriarty shows up with his Fazio book.    

[John Kavanaugh]

Play after a morning rain and breath the eucaliptus.  We are all members of The Riviera or we don't belong at all.

[Mike_Cirba]

Play after a morning rain and breath the eucaliptus.  We are all members of The Riviera or we don't belong at all.

John,

I have to agree with you there.   Even with changes that I'm not really thrilled about, Riviera is one of the truly special golf courses in this country.  

I'd be a member in a NY minute.

Geoffrey Childs would likely concur with me that it might be the greatest test in the world in identifying the truly fantastic and inimitable golfer, particularly the back nine.

Wouldn't you agree, Geoff?  

[Kalen Braley]

Here you go Jess

[wsmorrison]

You guys seem to be answering the question like the membership is being given to you.  Who wouldn't be happy with that?  The real question is, if you had to pay the umpteen thousands of dollars to join, would you be happy with the goings on?  I don't think you should leave the economics out of the equation.

[JESII]

No Pat Mucci here, I know when I bite off more than I can chew...



MC,

As to your question...

"Is it better for architects who love the classics to walk away when they smell "renovation" instead of restoration or preservation when they know that the owners are just going to find another architect who might not be as sensitive or skillful?  

I am sure those interested in preservation have assumed that if a committee has its sights set on "renovation", they couldn't stop them in the long run anyway?

[Mike_Cirba]

You guys seem to be answering the question like the membership is being given to you.  Who wouldn't be happy with that?  The real question is, if you had to pay the umpteen thousands of dollars to join, would you be happy with the goings on?  I don't think you should leave the economics out of the equation.

Wayne,

I think that's a great and fair point.

I'm just trying to view if from a golf course perspective and for me it's in the very rarified stratosphere.   It's that good.

All of my finances are hypothetical these days, anyway!  

[Geoffrey Childs]

Play after a morning rain and breath the eucaliptus.  We are all members of The Riviera or we don't belong at all.

John,

I have to agree with you there.   Even with changes that I'm not really thrilled about, Riviera is one of the truly special golf courses in this country.  

I'd be a member in a NY minute.

Geoffrey Childs would likely concur with me that it might be the greatest test in the world in identifying the truly fantastic and inimitable golfer, particularly the back nine.

Wouldn't you agree, Geoff?  

100% Mr Hogan.  The scorecard shows we have the same 18 hole total even with your 34 on the back 9. If I had my skycaddie instead of getting an incorrect yardage from the caddie on 10 resulting in airmailing into the back bunker I might have won  

[John Kirk]

Yes.  Love the place.

Although the bunkers are a little too white, and possess shapes that appear somewhat deviated from the original Thomas designs, they are still located in the same positions.  Great course, with more special holes than most top 100 courses.

[Geoffrey Childs]

A couple of quotes from Mr. Fazios book

"We say the courses built in the 1920's are "classics" because they have so much history associated with them and many of the legendary players have left their legacies there.  But the "old days" are different for everyone.......... Here's a statement the pundits can chew on: When we look back at the last decade of the 20th century, I am ressonably confident that it will be remembered as its own golden age of golf course design.  To be bolder, I'll suggest that when the experts later this century look back and assess the past 100 years of golf architecture, their rankings will indicate a majority of the premier courses of the 20th century were designed in the 1990's."

"Could Ross or TIllinghast have done that? Of course they could, with modern training and experience, maybe as well or better then anyone. They were certainly able to do outstanding work on wonderful pieces of ground, even on land that wasn't so wonderful and producing interesting, lasting work.  But they also did some things that today wouldn't be acceptable.  Some of the holes on our famous golf courses, even some designed by legendary designers, wouldn't pass muster with today's golfers.  Back then, you didn't blast away a pile of rock to remove a blind spot; you just played over it.  It was an issue of economics and equipement.  If we tried that today, we'd be run out of town because golfers don't like blind holes and its easy to avoid building them"

This is what I do not like.  There are other quotes throughout the book.  I found these two in a quick skim.  Is he trying to stack the deck so that by century's end there will be nothing left of the 1920's to compare with his courses of the 1990's?  

PS- as stated I could play Riviera as it is today and be very happy.  That is not the point in this argument IMHO.

[nandoal]

Bel-Air has some of the same issues minus the ownership.

What do you mean by "ownership"?

[Peter Pallotta]

Geoffrey
thanks - an interesting quote. I can't discuss Fazio's work at Riviera, or anywhere else for the matter, as I've never played a Fazio course. But I found this snippet telling:

"Some of the holes on our famous golf courses, even some designed by legendary designers, wouldn't pass muster with today's golfers."

It seems to me that in any profession or art form, the top practitioners tend to fall into two camps: they either use their talent to lead or to follow. They either say, in words and in actions, "that's the way it is, so I'll serve it up to you just the way you like it" or they say "that's the way it should be, and I hope you'll follow me as I go there".

I suppose the world needs (and benefits from) both types, and I know that both types can and do have genuine talent; but I have to be honest: I prefer the one who takes the risk and leads. Besides there being something noble in that, I tend to think that this approach (somehow, in ways I can't understand) always produces the best work in the end.

Btw, I would also join Riviera in a heartbeat, if only to stroll around in Dean Martin's footsteps.  

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()