Bogey’s Insane Thread: Riviera’s 10th

[Mike Hendren]

Universally acclaimed as a great strategic short par, is the 10th at Riviera functionally obsolete in today’s game?


Now my absurd question: Would the hole be any less strategic if its bunkers were filled in at grade?  Uglier, no doubt. 

[Ben Sims]

Bogey,


I want to caveat that I really like Riviera. Love it in fact. Top 10 personal.


But is 10 still amazing after all these years? It is my opinion that the decision on short par 4’s isn’t based on distance anymore (driver vs 5 iron for instance). Everyone hits the longest club they can. And for that reason, I think 10 becomes distinctly more interesting if it was fairway all the way from the palm trees to the alternate green. Increase the variance of difficulty for the second shot the closer you get to the green is what I’m saying.


Hole might be more interesting with filled in greenside bunkers. But not fairway ones?

[Charlie Goerges]

Hole might be more interesting with filled in greenside bunkers. But not fairway ones?

That’s how it was originally.

[Michael Dugger]

I think anytime you place a wide and narrow green where the narrow part is in the direct line of play, you get a compelling golf hole.


It's one of the great pieces of strategic golf course design.


Whether it's a short par 3 (Aug 12) or short par 4 (Riv 10) or whatever length of hole, it gets you thinking about angles, your ability to stop the ball, and the penalty for being too bold.

[Mike Hendren]

What’s so great about an extremely shallow green that slopes down from front to back?

[David Kelly]

Universally acclaimed as a great strategic short par, is the 10th at Riviera functionally obsolete in today’s game?

Functionally obsolete for whom?  People who play it on a day-to-day basis or the professionals who play in the Genesis tournament?

[Mike Hendren]

A double digit handicapper might not hit that green all year.

[John Kirk]

As of a few years ago, my take is the bunker behind the green makes the hole goofy hard for a typical player.  I'm looking at a photo of the back bunker and it's so big, quite deep and maybe 20 or more yards wide.  Bunkers line about 75% of the green's perimeter.

The problem is that some professional golfers can drive the ball past the green, so I guess the club and the PGA don't want them having a relatively easy up and down from behind the green.  For day to day play, the huge fronting bunker requires either of two strategies.  You can play safe sideways and try to hit the front left of the green, which is doable, and then try to two putt to the back pin positions from there.  I did that once and it was a very memorable down-in-three moment for me.  The other option is to try and hit a soft bunker shot to the right half of the green, which slopes steeply away from the player and is only about 10 yards deep.  At least 90% of the time you'll be in the back bunker for your next shot, which requires a tough but not impossible shot back onto the green where a challenging double bogey is within reach.

I don't think that back bunker was always there.  The question is how could you make it tough during tournament week for the pros but not so difficult for day to day play?  There has to be a better solution.  You could cut the grass behind the green to fairway height all the way to the 11th fairway, and see if the pros can get up and down from 25-40 yards away.  Or you could let the grass grow to 4-6" and let them struggle with that.

I still love the hole for the way the precise layup short of the left fairway bunker gives you a great angle, a straight-on look at the deep but narrow green.  From there a front pin location is a pretty easy shot.  It's not one of my favorite holes on the course, especially when watching the pros play the Genesis Open. Most of them try to drive the green and it seems at least half of them end up in the grove of trees left of the green where the resulting second shot varies quite a bit but it's not very interesting to watch.

[George Pazin]

As of a few years ago, my take is the bunker behind the green makes the hole goofy hard for a typical player.  I'm looking at a photo of the back bunker and it's so big, quite deep and maybe 20 or more yards wide.  Bunkers line about 75% of the green's perimeter.

Goofy hard in what sense? To par, or to bogey, or to finish without a potential X?

[John Kirk]

As of a few years ago, my take is the bunker behind the green makes the hole goofy hard for a typical player.  I'm looking at a photo of the back bunker and it's so big, quite deep and maybe 20 or more yards wide.  Bunkers line about 75% of the green's perimeter.

Goofy hard in what sense? To par, or to bogey, or to finish without a potential X?

Hi George,

I feel you're nitpicking a bit.  I'm already reluctant to say much of anything here anymore.

Goofy hard as in it might cause an 18 handicapper to play several bunker shots is a row and then give up and take an X.  So hard it might make my wife utter the rare swear word.   So hard a grinder might proudly tell the tale of battling for a solid 7 on the hole.  I don't know.  It's too hard.  I doubt this was the original intent of the hole.  Even the original fronting bunker was quite small; now it's surrounded by them.  See original aerial at https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=70467.0.

[George Pazin]

I apologize for poor wording that made you feel that way, but it was an attempt at an honest question. To me, there is a gigantic difference between a hard par, a hard bogey, and hard to finish, and I was simply trying to understand which category you placed the 10th in. It never struck me as hard to finish while viewing it over the years on the tube, it’s interesting to me you feel it may be. Hopefully someday I’ll find out in person.


The absolutely last thing I ever want to do on here is throttle discussion; heck, I barely post anymore, for other reasons. Sorry again, have a good day.

[John Kirk]

Hi George,

Thanks for your kind response.  This is my fault for sounding prickly.  I don't think I understood your intent.  It sounds like we both have our reservations about offering our opinions here.

I don't get around much anymore.  It would have been nice to meet you out in the great big world of golf.  I did come to your home town a couple of times but that was many years ago.  I'm getting old and kind of reigning everything in.  Happy to be where I am.

I almost bumped this thread to complain about the lack of effort to defend the 10th hole's lofty reputation.  Both Ben Sims and I offered modest endorsements of the hole, but neither of us are all that excited about it.  Where's the counterargument?

Once again, sorry.  I wasn't seriously put out by your question.  I just didn't have a good response.

[George Pazin]

Hi George,

Thanks for your kind response.  This is my fault for sounding prickly.  I don't think I understood your intent.  It sounds like we both have our reservations about offering our opinions here.

No worries, just wanted to clarify my question.


My personal reasons for not posting have nothing to do with the site or its members, more my life. Been struggling to keep my biz afloat since 2020, also experiencing some physical challenges related to aging, but most importantly, don’t feel I have much to add that I haven’t already said many times over.


Have a good one!


Edit: with respect to the shot demands in question, I can only offer this. At my favorite course, which everyone knows, I had a green side shot on the 2nd that is as close to impossible as most any I’ve seen. I somehow managed to hit it exactly as intended - landing it on the green side rough and allowing it to trickle onto the green to about 8 feet. I will remember that shot for as long as I play golf, and I’ve shared the story more than a few times over a beer. As long as I’m not repeatedly trying to figure out where to drop, I’m ok with extreme difficulty, and I’m a mediocre at best golfer.

[Tags:]

Tags: