[DMoriarty]

...most of us people only get to see a course like this on TV...Isn't that a good thing...to be entertained in an ESPN kinda way.  

I dont get your post JakaB.  Correct me if I am wrong, but when you say "a course like this"  I assume you mean an excellent course with character.   Well what if the changes make the course less a "course like this"  and more a course just like most other boring tour stops?   Would you still want to watch Riviera on TV if most of its character was bulldozed and replaced with the bland and common?  

[JakaB]

David,

I don't tune in to watch the members play....The improvements improve the course for the pros and the watching of the pros.  If the pros played the womens tees I would not tune in....unless Daly was going for two in a row.

[DMoriarty]

But in your previous post you implied that you tuned in, at least in part, to see the course.   What if the course ceases to be the same course?

[JakaB]

David,

I do not have production control over the telecast...think about what they present to me and if any of that changes because of the architectural changes we have witnessed.  Most of the telecast is around the greens...have they changed....alot of the telecast are the guys hitting great shots...has the architecture changed that....does the telecast get into the mind of the golfer and show me why he chose to hit another great drive down a certain side of fairway....I love a great recovery shot on TV...has the random nature of possible recoveries been reduced by the changes in architecture...I like number 6, 10 and 18...have they been reduced in interest as far as the TV viewer goes....I agree that the course may have lost character but they never showed it to me to begin with.   You have to remember that my comments to Andrew were about his dissapointment with an ESPN article...not Architectural Digest.

[DMoriarty]

JakaB,

Parts of Riviera are so good that you can actually see its' character on tv, and even sometimes see what the golfer is thinking (or if he is thinking at all.)   Think of the playoff last year on 10.   And if they cover 8 you can see the absence of character as a result of changes to the course.  

Granted the course hasnt been completely ruined and its greatness is still recognizable, but many changes have been made and the changes are out character both aesthetically and strategically.   The frustration is that those who extol both Riviera's character and the changes seem oblivious to the fact that the changes are chipping away at the character of the course.

[James Edwards]

mikeolympic,

When were you there?  I was there a couple of days ago when the course was shut.  We lucky enough to be shown around by Matt Morten the superintendent and he was extremely proud of his bunker renovation/relocation effort at both 17 and 15.

What are your views on 15 with the new tee?

James

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Brad,
Your very reliable source is exaggerating. Tom certainly did ask about bouncing some of his ideas off of me (as I'm sure he did with many others), but like you with your many consulting jobs I don't work for free. And I also have a special policy that forbids me from working for free for millionaires who despise Americans (that would be the ownership), and of course, I certainly didn't want to be associated with a USGA-driven approach to altering a masterpiece.

I did have a nice chat with Tom yesterday, and we talked about the 18th tee, which I'm not sure why players are complaining about (it's essentially 15 or so yards longer, and on the same line as the old tee as far as I can tell). It is however, big enough to be converted into a G5 runway if need be, but scale has never been the strongsuit of the recent efforts to upgrade the course.

Thankfully, he and Matt Morton had to go so I didn't have to tell him what I thought of 15 and 17, nor did I have to see what is on the blueprints that he always seems to be carrying around in a Fed Ex box. At this point, I'd really rather not know, as I'd guess based on what I've seen, the ideas range from weird to downright scary.
Geoff

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat and others,
The old bunker used to sit into the face partially in the face of one of the many little channels that run throughout the course. It raised above the fairway, and I will be the first to admit the unsightly look of a cart path running majestically through this once really cool bunker. Whomever was responsbile for that one deserves a good swift kick in the____.

From the looks of it, they have shave all of that down and moved the fill up the fairway to the new bunker site. It was something that didn't need to be done, because 1--I like the idea that an eagle on #17 could really affect the outcome of the tournament. 2--It still played plenty challenging for the members, now its changed quite dramatically. All of these changes affect the course how it plays for the people that play it the most. And that to me is making changes that are not sypathetic to the Thomas design-ideal, which, if we get down to it, we wouldn't even be having if they simply rolled-back the golf ball.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()