What were they thinking - Riviera #6?

[Mark_Fine]

I know there is debate on this site about being able to figure out what architects were thinking when they designed golf holes.  I happen to be more of the mindset of my friend [/size]Tom Paul, who many of us here know and remember who said, “Design intent is commonsensical and not rocket science". I thought I might pick a few holes and talk about what I think the design intent was (we will see how long this lasts) and see if others agree or disagree.  To start, let’s take the bunker in the center of the green on the 6th hole at Riviera.  Was Thomas just trying to be quirky or was he simply being creative and clever?  Some sadly think he was just being unfair [/size] The reality is that bunker in the center of that green is located perfectly.  It simply divides the green into compartments.  It is up to the golfer to place his or her tee shot into the correct one to have an [/size]unobstructed path to the hole.  And sometimes, even if they fail, the contours of the green allow a putt to get somewhere near the hole.  Other times, they just might have a very tight lie with a hazard between them and the hole to deal with.  This is what I believe was Thomas’ design intent with that bunker/greensite.  Obviously the more clever the architect, the more study that is sometimes required to figure things out.   

[AChao]

Maybe he just wanted to try something wild or different.  What I find a bit odd is that I've played Riviera a handful of times and every time I've played, the hole location has been front left or front middle.  Maybe it's like that for member play, but back left and back right all look more interesting than front hole locations.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark, nice topic, even if it calls for rampant speculation.


My first thought was that maybe he was trying to one up Mac's U shaped greens at UM and Crystal Downs, but RCC was built earlier, so maybe Mac liked the idea but thought it was impractical, and didn't carry the "U" completely around to form an "O".


I agree with those who say it was probably just meant to be a "conversation piece" type green, and also not surprised that the pins find their way on most days to the most accessible front spots, which may (from memory) be easier to putt to from above the hole.


Or, as Mark speculates, it was just a different way to subdivide a big par three green into smaller compartments, which isn't a bad idea.  This was before the era of PGA Tour pros acting as consultants, and their typical question of, "What if I hit it HERE?" which tends to water down most unusual design ideas, LOL.  Or for that matter, before supers were willing to speak up about maintenance problems, like divots on greens.

[Rick Shefchik]

Mark, nice topic, even if it calls for rampant speculation.


My first thought was that maybe he was trying to one up Mac's U shaped greens at UM and Crystal Downs, but RCC was built earlier, so maybe Mac liked the idea but thought it was impractical, and didn't carry the "U" completely around to form an "O".


I agree with those who say it was probably just meant to be a "conversation piece" type green, and also not surprised that the pins find their way on most days to the most accessible front spots, which may (from memory) be easier to putt to from above the hole.


Or, as Mark speculates, it was just a different way to subdivide a big par three green into smaller compartments, which isn't a bad idea.  This was before the era of PGA Tour pros acting as consultants, and their typical question of, "What if I hit it HERE?" which tends to water down most unusual design ideas, LOL.  Or for that matter, before supers were willing to speak up about maintenance problems, like divots on greens.

I think it was done fairly early in the evolution of the modern golf course, and was something thrown on the wall to see if it would stick. It did not, mainly for the reason Jeff mentions - divots on the green. It is a bad idea to create a feature that the club/superintendent will not allow you to play with the proper shot.

[Pete Lavallee]

When I played there in 1985 the scorecard specifically said: “putters only on the 6th green”. Of course the Tour allows wedges during their Event.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Now that I think about it, didn't LACC have a similar par 3 green, with a knob in the middle?  And, it was built in 1921.  Can't recall the exact story, but I think Geoff Shack has it somewhere in one of his books.  Thus, its possible he wanted to copy his conceptual own self, but didn't want to copy the look, so he one upped himself by substituting the pot bunker for the small knob?

[Mark_Fine]

John V would know better that I but for many years "the putting green" was defined as anything within 20 yards of the pin excluding hazards (later in 1842 amended to exclude uneven or broken ground).  I am sure Thomas knew the rules of golf and I wonder if he thought about this when he designed #6.  The rule was changed in 1952 to define the putting green as a specially prepared surface. 


Jeff, As you know you can face the same situation on The Old Course at St. Andrew's regarding having a high mound inside the green between you and the hole.  It's not a formal hazard but it sure IS a hazard    and if you are on the wrong side of it you are in trouble. 

[Pat Burke]

While I never had the success mentioned in this thread, there were courses that when I played my first practice round, I just felt comfortable. 
Pebble
Wailea
Bay Hill
TPC
Atlanta
En Joie




Kingston Heath
Royal Melbourne (c)
Victoria


All courses I felt comfortable on and was able to get after

[Mark Kiely]

While I never had the success mentioned in this thread, there were courses that when I played my first practice round, I just felt comfortable. 
Pebble
Wailea
Bay Hill
TPC
Atlanta
En Joie




Kingston Heath
Royal Melbourne (c)
Victoria


All courses I felt comfortable on and was able to get after

Assuming this was meant for this thread:
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69623.0.html