Post Round Thoughts on Bel-Air, LACC, and Riviera

[Jon Spaulding]

Jon-

By the way, how good is the par 3 10th at Bel-Air, huh?

Of the 3 courses, the best par 3 I played, with the 11th at LACC a close second.

Jim

10 Bel Air is quite good. I find the green a bit "off" as compared to the original, with the two-tiered affair, but the setting is perhaps the best amongst the 3 courses. It's also one of the more demanding iron shots on any of them.

Of my gripes with the course, this would be on the lower end of the spectrum. Of course having played #9 and coming up to #11 and #12.....this would be a lower case "a" sandwiched between uppercase "A" holes.

I do like #7 at LA quite a bit, as well as #4 and #16 at Riviera. #11 LA, as already mentioned, is marketed as a redan, kind of looks like a redan..... but sure don't play like one. Hopefully they can turn off some of the water fronting the green.

[Tom Huckaby]

Of course the coolest thing about 10 at Bel-Air is not the swinging bridge.. it's the plaque by the green.  You know the one Jon.  It states:

TOM HUCKABY FORECADDIED HERE, ALL ROUNDS, 1976 US AMATEUR.

 

And I think that is indeed the last time I set foot on those grounds.

SO... you or another historian.. what if anything has changed on that golf hole since 1976?  Boy the green looks in the wrong place to me.. I remember less land between barranca and green.. I also sure don't remember those trees short right of the green....

But it is likely my failing memory again.

TH

[Jim Thornton]

Jon-

"difficult iron shot to 3 #10 at Bel-Air" (a 225 yard uphill par 3)

Thanks for reaffirming what I already knew...that good players play a game with which I am unfamiliar.  I hit driver on #10 into the back bunker, and with the hole cut in the back, proceeded to blast out, run off the front of the green and 3 putted for an ignominious double bogey 5.

Jim

[David Druzisky]

Jim,

What a nice several days playing those 3.  Hard to do better.

It has been some time since I had the good fortune of playing BA and unfortunately one of the lasting impressions I have of the course was how bad the water features were.  As you say, totally out of character.  I believe another post hints that they were an extension of a specific period of time that associated with the creation of such landscapes at other new courses elsewhere.

Otherwise a great course but yes the lesser of the three.  By no means bad.

I agree with Sean about proper bunker positioning vs. styling.  We can learn a lot more about the original intent of the design by studying where those bunkers were positioned  rather than how they made them look.  Some of the styling does effect how they play but most of the time the discussion is on how they look and so on.  There are some many reasons and often reasonable ones why the bunkers are different in style so it really can be hard to be too critical and just assume the original style is the best style.  That said, if they can make the ragged edge style work at LACC, then all the better.

I have always felt that LACC has a bigger and bolder scale to it too but Riviera had the best collection of holes keeping it at the top.  There are some great restorative opportunities to some of the holes at LACC that I would assume Gil and Geoff have on the "to-do" list.

DbD

[Damon Groves]

For my part, I would like to hear from those who know the courses well enough to discuss whats really important about the bunkers - how do they impact play?  Far too much time is wasted arguing about the style of bunkers.  Its neither here nor there in the big scheme of things.  While I may agree that a certain style is nicer than another or that trying to keep the look in keeping with the original look is pretty cool, its just fluff when we get into the heart of any course.   

Ciao 

So the nature of the bunkers is fluff as long as the location is the same?

To an extent I think this is absolutely true.

Sure, all things equal, if I could have aesthetically pleasing bunkers versus less-so types I would choose the former, but it's like talking about ocean views to some extent.  Does it really change the playing characteristics of a hole to have frilly bunkers versus sharp-edged ones?  Yes, for the 0.1% of shots that hit the edge and carom one way or another, it's a consideration....but for say, the 6th at Riviera.  Does it really make a difference in that hole's playing characteristics whether the bunker is what's there today or a Bell circa 1938 version other than the look?

I never understand the sycophantic fascination with bunkering.  It's a hazard.  I wish to avoid it.  If I am in it I wish to extricate myself.  If the shape, etc is the same I care little, as a player, whether the lip over which I intend to golf my ball is hairy and frilly or sharp and manicured.

Look at the bunker restoration work at Pasatiempo and then tell me only location matters. Or look at the geometric designs first built in the US. You are going to tell me that as long as the location is correct the look or style of the bunker does not matter?

[Sean_A]

For my part, I would like to hear from those who know the courses well enough to discuss whats really important about the bunkers - how do they impact play?  Far too much time is wasted arguing about the style of bunkers.  Its neither here nor there in the big scheme of things.  While I may agree that a certain style is nicer than another or that trying to keep the look in keeping with the original look is pretty cool, its just fluff when we get into the heart of any course.   

Ciao 

So the nature of the bunkers is fluff as long as the location is the same?

To an extent I think this is absolutely true.

Sure, all things equal, if I could have aesthetically pleasing bunkers versus less-so types I would choose the former, but it's like talking about ocean views to some extent.  Does it really change the playing characteristics of a hole to have frilly bunkers versus sharp-edged ones?  Yes, for the 0.1% of shots that hit the edge and carom one way or another, it's a consideration....but for say, the 6th at Riviera.  Does it really make a difference in that hole's playing characteristics whether the bunker is what's there today or a Bell circa 1938 version other than the look?

I never understand the sycophantic fascination with bunkering.  It's a hazard.  I wish to avoid it.  If I am in it I wish to extricate myself.  If the shape, etc is the same I care little, as a player, whether the lip over which I intend to golf my ball is hairy and frilly or sharp and manicured.

Look at the bunker restoration work at Pasatiempo and then tell me only location matters. Or look at the geometric designs first built in the US. You are going to tell me that as long as the location is correct the look or style of the bunker does not matter?

Damon

I am no saying bunker styling doesn't matter.  Of course it does, but we all have different opinions about what looks good.  I am saying that compared to other, proper impactful issues on how the course plays is more important. Yet, folks on this site get all hung upon the look of bunkers rather than critically looking at the reasons for their placement and if they really add value.  In other words, too much discussion is superficial.

Ciao

[Matthew Rose]

I was looking at an aerial of Bel-Air, curious about the water features. It appears two holes on the front nine have rather ornate ponds guarding the greens (#3? and #8?).

What was there prior to these being installed? It looks like there is a creek that runs through part of the course.

Fascinating course to look at from the air... would love to play it.

[rjsimper]

For my part, I would like to hear from those who know the courses well enough to discuss whats really important about the bunkers - how do they impact play?  Far too much time is wasted arguing about the style of bunkers.  Its neither here nor there in the big scheme of things.  While I may agree that a certain style is nicer than another or that trying to keep the look in keeping with the original look is pretty cool, its just fluff when we get into the heart of any course.   

Ciao 

So the nature of the bunkers is fluff as long as the location is the same?

To an extent I think this is absolutely true.

Sure, all things equal, if I could have aesthetically pleasing bunkers versus less-so types I would choose the former, but it's like talking about ocean views to some extent.  Does it really change the playing characteristics of a hole to have frilly bunkers versus sharp-edged ones?  Yes, for the 0.1% of shots that hit the edge and carom one way or another, it's a consideration....but for say, the 6th at Riviera.  Does it really make a difference in that hole's playing characteristics whether the bunker is what's there today or a Bell circa 1938 version other than the look?

I never understand the sycophantic fascination with bunkering.  It's a hazard.  I wish to avoid it.  If I am in it I wish to extricate myself.  If the shape, etc is the same I care little, as a player, whether the lip over which I intend to golf my ball is hairy and frilly or sharp and manicured.

Look at the bunker restoration work at Pasatiempo and then tell me only location matters. Or look at the geometric designs first built in the US. You are going to tell me that as long as the location is correct the look or style of the bunker does not matter?

PLAYABILITY wise, it does not matter.

The bunker is in my way.

I wish not to hit my ball into it.

If my ball is in it, I wish to extricate myself.

Simple as that.

Who gives a rat's tail if it's a frilly bunker or not...is that going to change yours or my chance of saving par?

Comments pertaining to mowing around bunkers, or location of bunkers I absolutely agree with.  And, are the bunkers at Pasa PRETTIER to look at?  Sure they are.

As long as everyone who says that the shaping of bunkers matters admits that they just like pretty things (and I do) then they are being honest.  The second anyone says that there is any impact on playability, assuming the location and   general shape remains the same, is lying to themselves.

Tell me please how, with the exception of the rare shot that lands precisely on the lip, the bunker short of 6 at Riviera would play any differently if it was frilly/fuzzy versus the sharp cut look now.  Aren't you still planning to hit a 6 iron over it?  If you don't and you land in the bunker, aren't you still trying to hit out of it?

[David Druzisky]

Ryan,

It looks like you agree with Sean, whom I agreed with earlier as well, that location and position of bunkers is more important at the end of the day than style.  But, I am not sure I myself go as far as you with style having no impact on playability.

I understand that in this post you are probably referring to if they simply changed the existing bunker edges at Riv to the ragged style and yes I agree, that wouldn't have very much impact - on shots played out of the sand.  The only issue would be that more balls might hang up in those additional lower tongues of grass that are currently sand ( and yes they will get comments on that).  Otherwise, there are several ways that bunker style can impact playability that you have to be careful about.  In fact, many of the courses I assist with renovation reason to me about how they do not like the playability of the bunkers.

Some styles that are employed might contain movement or slope within the bunker floor (sand).  This effects playability and is one of the biggest complaints I hear at private clubs especially.  Some of the awkward stances that result can be brutal.

Some may consider depth of the bunkers a style choice as much as function or whatever.  If you go into an existing course and introduce a bunker style that requires greater depth to the bunkers than what was there before, playability is altered.  An although most of us would say the players/members will adjust, most never do.

If you go to a course that has smallish greens and green pads and you decide to push the greenside bunkers in tighter against (under) the green, you need to be aware of the types of shots that are required to get out of those bunkers effectively and weigh things like the sand type and bunker depth again to determine if you can.

It is a fine line.  But a hazard is a hazard, is a hazard and lets hope they complain!

It is great to talk about bunkers and not only about if the bunker styling could be the winner of the beauty pageant!

DbD

[Sean_A]

David

Here is my idea of an ideal bunker.  No frills, just substance.



Ciao

[David Druzisky]

Sean,

You bet!

Come to think of it there are very few courses - and great ones at that - that I have played over there and even remember their bunkers from a style standpoint.  I just remember how they dictated play.  I have more memories of how severe specific ones were and were they were located in reference to how I thought I would play the hole until I realized otherwise.

[David Stamm]

For my part, I would like to hear from those who know the courses well enough to discuss whats really important about the bunkers - how do they impact play?  Far too much time is wasted arguing about the style of bunkers.  Its neither here nor there in the big scheme of things.  While I may agree that a certain style is nicer than another or that trying to keep the look in keeping with the original look is pretty cool, its just fluff when we get into the heart of any course.   

Ciao 

So the nature of the bunkers is fluff as long as the location is the same?

To an extent I think this is absolutely true.

Sure, all things equal, if I could have aesthetically pleasing bunkers versus less-so types I would choose the former, but it's like talking about ocean views to some extent.  Does it really change the playing characteristics of a hole to have frilly bunkers versus sharp-edged ones?  Yes, for the 0.1% of shots that hit the edge and carom one way or another, it's a consideration....but for say, the 6th at Riviera.  Does it really make a difference in that hole's playing characteristics whether the bunker is what's there today or a Bell circa 1938 version other than the look?

I never understand the sycophantic fascination with bunkering.  It's a hazard.  I wish to avoid it.  If I am in it I wish to extricate myself.  If the shape, etc is the same I care little, as a player, whether the lip over which I intend to golf my ball is hairy and frilly or sharp and manicured.

Look at the bunker restoration work at Pasatiempo and then tell me only location matters. Or look at the geometric designs first built in the US. You are going to tell me that as long as the location is correct the look or style of the bunker does not matter?

PLAYABILITY wise, it does not matter.

The bunker is in my way.

I wish not to hit my ball into it.

If my ball is in it, I wish to extricate myself.

Simple as that.

Who gives a rat's tail if it's a frilly bunker or not...is that going to change yours or my chance of saving par?


I believe Jon addressed your ignorant comments via email. 

Comments pertaining to mowing around bunkers, or location of bunkers I absolutely agree with.  And, are the bunkers at Pasa PRETTIER to look at?  Sure they are.

As long as everyone who says that the shaping of bunkers matters admits that they just like pretty things (and I do) then they are being honest.  The second anyone says that there is any impact on playability, assuming the location and   general shape remains the same, is lying to themselves.


Tell me please how, with the exception of the rare shot that lands precisely on the lip, the bunker short of 6 at Riviera would play any differently if it was frilly/fuzzy versus the sharp cut look now.  Aren't you still planning to hit a 6 iron over it?  If you don't and you land in the bunker, aren't you still trying to hit out of it?


"There is no thrill in driving over an ugly hazard."

[Jeff Schley]

Reviving this older thread as much has happened since this discussion.

LACC is now hosting the US Open and hosted a Walker Cup already after a Hanse renovation.

Bel Air is going through a major renovation by our Tom Doak, which I predict will take the course back into the top 100 (but GCA hastes lists  )

Riviera has consistently hosted the LA Open and supposedly the leader to host the Olympics when it comes to LA in 2028.

I have played Bel Air and will play Riviera this year.  LACC is elusive and hope to hit my tee ball there in the future.  Any new observations of a comparison of LA's version of the Big 3?

[Stephen Davis]

Reviving this older thread as much has happened since this discussion.

LACC is now hosting the US Open and hosted a Walker Cup already after a Hanse renovation.

Bel Air is going through a major renovation by our Tom Doak, which I predict will take the course back into the top 100 (but GCA hastes lists  )

Riviera has consistently hosted the LA Open and supposedly the leader to host the Olympics when it comes to LA in 2028.

I have played Bel Air and will play Riviera this year.  LACC is elusive and hope to hit my tee ball there in the future.  Any new observations of a comparison of LA's version of the Big 3?

Its hard to say anything until after the Bel Air work is done. As it stands now LACC North is the clear leader. The course is near perfection from tee to green. Interesting, challenging and  not enough is being said about the fantastic course that Hanse et al. did on the South course. It is a completely new course (except a couple of holes getting away and back to the clubhouse) and a ton of fun!

Riviera is possibly one of the best courses in the world, that is not living up to its potential and is quickly being left behind in the area. It is in desperate need of tree removal. I wouldn't cry if nearly every eucalyptus tree on the property was felled along with the silly trees in between 1 and 2. Also, several holes are in need of a restoration, 8 being the number one candidate in my mind, and the course could use a gas and regrass. It would look and play better with new grass everywhere except the greens. The grass on the greens is fine as is. But the crab grass/kikuyu mix that has filled in the barrancas needs to be removed and the barrancas restored to their former glory.


I am really excited to see how Bel Air turns out. It has all the potential in the world. I am excited to hear that a very liberal tree removal program was done.

[Tom_Doak]

Time flies... the work at Bel Air is finished, and we can't wait to play it in July.


I would have agreed with most everything written about Bel Air in the OP.  Today, the ponds are no more, the original 41 bunkers are restored (and the rest removed), the interior trees have been radically thinned, the barrancas are back on 1, 9 & 18.  They really let us restore the golf course!  I do hope they like it the way it was ...


It may (or may not) be the third best of the three, but it's a lot closer contest now.  And like Bandon Trails or Maidstone or whatever's third at Streamsong (and that's not the Blue!!), it deserves discussion on its own merits instead of just that.

[mike_beene]

You may not be able to say, but did you fix that crazy bunker field to the right of the first green? Will be interested to see what you did with 7 green. And Mae West?Was 11 once a double fairway?

[Tom_Doak]

You may not be able to say, but did you fix that crazy bunker field to the right of the first green?  All gone.
Will be interested to see what you did with 7 green. Man that was a lot of work - not the green but everything around it.
And Mae West?  It took a lot of fill to put it back.  Mae would have been proud of that.
Was 11 once a double fairway? Not a double fairway I think - just one very big one.  The one thing we haven't done yet are all the mowing lines ... those will be fixed in May.

[Andrew Buck]

I have very little to offer by way of comparison, other than saying LACC is about as good as it can get in a major metro area.  Added bonus that I found the membership as warm and welcoming as I've experienced at a club with that pedigree. 

I can't wait to get back and see the south course.

[John Burnes]

LACC is one of the finest golf experiences I've ever had.  In the world.


I am very fortunate to have played there.


All world.