Why hasn't Riviera #10 been copied more?

« **on:** February 22, 2004, 03:28:55 AM »

(Or has it and I just don't know....)

Of all the wonderful holes discussed on this site that I haven't played, the 10th at Riviera is my favorite.

In all seriousness, I can't think of any other hole played on tour where so many top pros choose to play it so differently. It even seems to welcome the occasional really mishit shot like McCarron's the other day, while also rejecting some nice conservative plays, too.

Obviously it was built too late to get into the CBM/Raynor repertoire, but I think if CBM had seen it, it would have gone into the rotation.

Why haven't more architects copied it, at least in principle?

« **Reply #1 on:** February 22, 2004, 04:16:50 AM »

George:

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I recall writing this somewhere - though I'm pretty certain it was in something that never got published.

What impresses me most about #10 is that within Thomas's routing, it is the lone hole to occupy land that was essentially devoid of any real natural features. Just a little more than 300 yards of blah terrain...yet Thomas made it, to my mind, the best hole on the golf course.

An LA Open guest mentioned to me the other day how amazed they were that Tour players would still do anything but place an iron down the left side, yet they do - frequently - and with the occasional spectacular result. Then again, in group one, at 7:00 am on Thursday, Olin Browne opened the festivities by carding an eight there, so it still has some major-league bite.

Just about my favorite hole anywhere.

DW

« **Reply #2 on:** February 22, 2004, 05:37:37 AM »

I couldn't agree more. 10 is a wonderful short par 4. I had a scheme planned a few years ago where I had a short 4 with the intentional flavour of No. 10 - but it fell through, so remains a field of barley.

I've got another scheme with a short 4 planned where I am tempted to try something similar again. I generally try to be as original as possible with my design concepts, but it is a long way from Scotland to Pacific Palisades, so I may have to build my own version before I get a chance to play the real thing.

I think it is my favourite short 4 also - a perfect strategy for a hole of this length.

« **Reply #3 on:** February 22, 2004, 05:52:32 AM »

When tour players fist pump a birdie on a short hole it gets your attention.

« **Reply #4 on:** February 22, 2004, 09:29:26 AM »

George Pazin,

My take is a little different.

I think the hole was ignored for years because of golf's consuming obsession with length.

For the last 10-15-20 years much of the focus has been on 600 yard par 5's, or unreachable par 5's, Par 4's of 460, then 480 and finally 500 yards.

Like # 1 at NGLA and GCGC short holes such as # 10 have been widely overlooked.

In addition, over the years TV coverage has been expanded.
It used to be that only the last few finishing holes created the drama and that's what the networks showed, ad naseum.

Then, coverage was expanded to the back nine and eventually to the entire course for the US Open, and now other tournaments are being telecast where the viewer is exposed to more and more golf holes at a given course.

With regard to Riviera, I think # 10 lived largely in the shadow of many other great holes. # 15, # 16 and # 18 are difficult, dramatic and can influence the drama and outcome of the tournament. So # 10 was an orphan of sorts.

Perhaps the frustration with the length issue is also causing more and more people to look toward holes with strategic merit versus back breaking length, and as such, # 10 at Riviera could be the poster boy.

Trends, fads, come and go, perhaps with the length trend being recognized for what it is and does, the trend toward holes such as # 10 will be revitalized.

« **Reply #5 on:** February 22, 2004, 10:41:59 AM »

George,
In my opinion this is the emphasis and intent or design genius and inspiration of some of the holes at Rustic Canyon. It wasn't an attempt to copy them, but a great chance to adhere to the design principles of holes like the 10th and so many more.

This is also what so many don't get when looking at the course. They would rather focus on the driving range fence or look of the clubhouse then what is actually in the ground. They forget to look at the beauty of the canyon and how the guys that built it did everything they could to enhance and refine it without destroying the key elements.

Its funny when they talk about width, and how Rustic Canyon has too much of it, well then, how about Riviera #10 and all of the rest of the holes at Riviera which expounded on width as a key ingredient to playability for all, while still maintaining challenge and strategy!

I'm not saying Rustic Canyon is anything in the same line of greatness as Riviera, but it certainly inspired by it, and when the naysayers challenge it, why, its almost as if they don't understand the basic greatness of what is Riviera!

« **Reply #6 on:** February 22, 2004, 10:54:38 AM »

I totally agree with Tommy, it's the width that makes that hole great! My only regret is that the Captain didn't design an alternate green to take the stress off the very small original. I'm sure that if I ever get to play Riviera again it will be on a Monday and that cheesy temporary green will be used. Isn't there enough room to design a better alternate green than the one that's there now?

« **Reply #7 on:** February 22, 2004, 11:47:14 AM »

Pete,
to this day, I too have not been able to play the course on the original 10th, and that is a bummer! But, I love the hole, and from all of the LA Opens that I have attended, it is the hole I watch most. I think everybody likes hanging out there because there is so much going on!

The temp green isn't all that bad--designed by Ron Forse and built by Dan Proctor & Dave Axland I think. (Lynn some help here) I have had birdie opportunities both times when playing it and three-putted it! although now, I'm convinced that its the wrong way to go after seeing Scotty Macarron play it from over there yesterday!

« **Reply #8 on:** February 22, 2004, 12:00:42 PM »

I agree with Patrick; for many years that length of hole was completely out of vogue. In fact, in the 1960's, the visiting USGA agronomist recommended changing the tenth hole to add some difficulty.

The other problem is that if you copied that green, it would be too small for heavy play, and if you made it any bigger, it wouldn't be the same hole.

The sixteenth at Pacific Dunes was vaguely inspired by the tenth at Riviera, in the size and shape of the green at least. So was the tenth at Riverdale Dunes.

« **Reply #9 on:** February 22, 2004, 12:15:57 PM »

I recall a nice hour long TV show (I believe I have a tape of it somewhere) reviewing Jack Nicklaus' 18 greatest holes in championship golf. Riviera #10 was on that list and Jack reviewed all those qualities we speak about. Width, angles, temtation and a small green that is severe from the wrong angle.

I agree that more of these akin to Riviera #10, NGLA #1, GCGC #1 and I would add Fenway #15 should be built. More then any other factor, quality holes like these even the playing field between the Corey Pavin's of the tour with the Tiger's. Most of all they are great FUN to play.

« **Reply #10 on:** February 22, 2004, 12:31:01 PM »

The green is very heavily sloped away from play, modern architects fear the criticism that may come from this style of hole.

Still the best designed hole I have played.

(by the way could somebody IM me to tell me how to make bold words)

« **Reply #11 on:** February 22, 2004, 12:35:44 PM »

Ian,

Isn't it ironic that the 10th hole at Riviera is universally praised, and still so many contemporary golf architects are supposedly afraid to design a green that runs away from the line of play so severely?

I find it ironic.

« **Reply #12 on:** February 22, 2004, 01:46:39 PM »

Would an 18 hole diet of similarly conceptualized holes get old?

Isn't the GCA answer to the technology argument to go shorter, ala this hole?

« **Reply #13 on:** February 22, 2004, 01:52:16 PM »

I apoligize for the wise crack about the alternate green on #10. I'm sure whoever built it had the unenvyable task of buiding a low budget chapel next to a world famous cathedral. Can anyone shed light on if there is any strategy employed with this green?

« **Reply #14 on:** February 22, 2004, 03:27:06 PM »

Could it be that the hole was long overlooked because it was slightly too long to be a viable one shot hole for all but the very longest?

Not to be blasphemous, but it seems that Riv 10 (along with PB 18) might be better strategic holes with the newer equipment.

« **Reply #15 on:** February 22, 2004, 03:48:23 PM »

The Golf Club in Cape Coral, Florida (Dick Wilson) has a hole early on the front nine which has almost identical yardage and bunkering. I do not know about the green contouring, though, as I have only seen a map of the hole.

« **Reply #16 on:** February 22, 2004, 04:52:35 PM »

If the fairway were widened way to the left, wouldn't #10 at Merion (East) be a #10-at-Riviera in reverse?

If so, should the fairway be widened on the left?

« **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2004, 05:33:38 PM »

George Pazin,

I think that there may be an added reason.

Years ago, copying a hole was not looked at unfavorably, today, I believe it would be.

If one of today's architects built an identical replica of # 10 on one of their new golf courses, I think they'd take a rap for lack of originality, that reference would be made, in a derogatory sense, that, "Oh, he just copied the 10th at Riviera, how difficult or unoriginal is that ?"

I don't think that the acceptance level for the duplication or replication of great holes has existed over the last 20 years.

One could also ask, where are all the shorts, the redans, the edens, the bottle's, etc., etc..

« **Reply #18 on:** February 22, 2004, 05:46:40 PM »

It may just be a lack of exposure? In our day and age, in a forum like this, it may be second nature to assume the hole is so good it should be copied. But what percentage of archies have had the chance to see this course? or this hole.

I know this a terribly general comment, but, if ego and originality are so forefront, as it relates to copying, How many bad holes have you seen copied?

« **Reply #19 on:** February 22, 2004, 07:05:43 PM »

Pete,
Don't get me wrong, the hole in that location is of little if any strategy. Last time there, I hit a driver over the massive bunker and had a half-wedge in, and it was like I was asleep on the hole, espeially when I went to putt!

You are correct, building a green next to THAT green is a high task.

For those who want to know, Schmidt & Curley are building a lot of holes based-off of the strategy or strategies of Riv #10

At Landmark GC-Skins North, I think there is like no less then three holes of this variety, and they are fun and challenging. I think its #12 that is the best representation of the hole, but #3 isn't far behind.

« **Reply #20 on:** February 22, 2004, 08:11:52 PM »

Isn't there a second green for #10 to the right of the one they play the Open on? Just a thought, but unless you're a private course like Riviera that sees relatively little play, any green that small on a short par fouor would be so littered with ball marks that it would be awful to putt on. The strategy would still be there, but I think you would have a huge maintenance hassle on your hands.

From what I could see in the aerial photos, the second green off to the right is much larger, and results in a much less strategic hole.

Just an observation.

« **Reply #21 on:** February 22, 2004, 10:04:14 PM »

When people use to talk about "Tiger-proofing" a golf course, this hole ought to lead the discussion on length isn't everything. I find it a fantastic golf hole.

« **Reply #22 on:** February 22, 2004, 11:32:54 PM »

Thanks for the interesting replies. I have to admit, Pat & Tom D's take on the hole and where it fits into golf's evolution seems like the most compelling reason - too bad for golfers everywhere, this is a hole that deserves to be exposed to more people.

Today's play even showed how non-mundane the layup play is, when Weir's errant approach led to bogey.

Great hole.

Dave M -

That's an interesting theory. I think I asked a similar question to my thread title to Geoff S. a few years ago and he said something similar, though he did indicate that top golfers gave it a try even shortly after the course opened. I read a book maybe 5 years ago entitled Through the Green (I think) that chronicled DLIII's efforts to win the LA Open against Freddie back in 92. He mentioned the 10th almost every day and recounted how difficult it was for him to accept that the best play might really be to lay up, so he was definitely thinking go way back then, 12 whole years ago, when he was still playing a wooden driver, too, I think. Of course, he's always been long, so he might not be the best example.

« **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2004, 12:22:37 AM »

Pat M. Good point about #10 being in front of the TV screen more now than the past when only the last 4-5 holes were shown.
Geoff C. Yes, Jack Nicklaus has always praised this hole. It was in a TV program he did on the greatest holes in championship golf. Courses that held majors.
I believe it is 2,800 square feet. On a public course it would be peppered with ball marks. I think the 16th is 2,300 square feet. That is a decent reason for an architect not to duplicate the 10th, but not a good reason for not duplicating the concept. An interesting fact on the 10th is that it did not have greenside bunkers in the original design. They were added after being awarded the 1929 LA Open and the powers that be wanted a tougher challenge. This could explain why they don't have a Billy Bell look.
The alternate green is acceptable. The primary goal in its construction was to be hidden from view when playing the original. That goal was attained. Cannot say for sure why, but when the alternate was seeded, it came in as the best green on the course. Seeding over sodding I guess.
David M. is probably right; today's golfer goes for the green more than in the past. Equipment, or do today's sluggers just try and overpower every hole they play? Probably one goes with the other.

« **Reply #24 on:** February 23, 2004, 12:45:16 AM »

Lynn - Wow - No greenside bunkers in the original design!
I can't imagine it. That is almost the entire strategy component of that fall away green to me.

Tom

News:

George Pazin

Daniel_Wexler

Robin_Hiseman

Bill Weber

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Tommy_Naccarato

Pete Lavallee

Tommy_Naccarato

Tom_Doak

GeoffreyC

ian

Jeff_Mingay

A_Clay_Man

Pete Lavallee

DMoriarty

JNC Lyon

CHrisB

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

A_Clay_Man

Tommy_Naccarato

FREEMAHC

BigEdSC

George Pazin

Lynn_Shackelford

Thomas_Brown

An Error Has Occurred!