News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Gerry B

Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« on: January 17, 2008, 07:27:15 PM »
Sitting here with Ben Cowan Dewar drinkng cult cabernets and I brought up the notion that Thomas was inspired by 17 at NGLA(Peconic) when he designed 10 at Riviera. To me it seems similar in terms of strategy.

Has the wine taken effect (and my mind is clouded) or am I on to something?

Any thoughts?

James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2008, 08:07:03 PM »
Gerry

interesting thought.  I have only seen Peconic via George Bahto's book.  I will look up Google and Scott Burroughs AOTD tonight.  I can't recall the green orientation at NGLA (there may be linkages with the Behr hole at Lakeside as well).

What were the cabernets?

James B
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2008, 08:20:07 PM »
I haven't played NGLA, but after looking at Bahto's book, I think the observation has merit. The green at Riviera appears to be more narrow and the tee angle at NGLA would need to be more to the right, but again, I haven't played it so what do I know.


I must also repeat James question, what cab's?
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Gerry B

Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2008, 09:00:16 PM »
James:

 arns and phelps insignia

Chip Gaskins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2008, 09:24:44 PM »
i have played NGLA.   i have not played riviera.

but from what i see in pics from riviera #10...i can't say i see much influence.

i can't really see the genius of #17 at NGLA, but i can speculate i see some genuis in #10 at riviera.  i hit driver and wedge into #17 at NGLA and cant' say i really see what everyone is talking about there? sorry.

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2008, 09:33:51 PM »
I was at NGLA last Monday most of the day with Bill Salinetti, their super. Bill recently found an abandoned, short tee off the right, at a totally different angle than from the upper tee. That LOP would lead one to think of the similarities to 10 Riv .... but just from that line of play.

The tee was covered with saplings until they cleared it.

The hole is short from there, a possible drivable par-4 perhaps IF you could fly the sand hill, but if lengthened considerable, it could be one of the great short-4's.
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2008, 09:41:06 PM »
Played both although Riviera only once.

I confess I don't see it.

For starters, the green complexes aren't at all alike.  #10 Riv is more like #8 PV  or #17 TOC in terms of penal destruction if you miss on your approach.

And I don't see the tee shots presenting the same problems, at all - even if I try to imagine Riviera playing pre-watering system firm/fast.

#17 NGLA looks more spectacular than it plays, IMO.

What IS true about the Peconic hole at National is that, like so many of the holes there, the problems off the tee REQUIRE a rock hard fairway to be 100% of the challenge that Macdonald built into the design.  Before National was restored circa 5 years ago to (much closer to) the way it originally played, keeping any well struck tee ball in the fairway wasn't much of a challenge.  Now, with 50+ yards of bounce and roll as a given, and those cross bunkers out there on the right center,...................

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2008, 09:42:28 PM »
George Bahto,

Are you refencing the tee behind and slightly right of # 16 green, one that has a clearly visible foot pad ?

And, has there been any further discussion on the alternate tee on # 13, to the left rear of # 12 green ?

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2008, 10:15:52 PM »
Pat asked: "Are you referencing the tee behind and slightly right of # 16 green, one that has a clearly visible foot pad ?"

No Pat .... this tee is way down near the fairway on the right, not far from where the cartpath meets the fairway - it's only about 265-270 from the green from there. It may have been the original 3rd tee for the hole but from there a long hitter would be faced with the problem of hitting his drive over the sand hill on the fly and of course it wouldn't hold the green. However, that LOP puts a whole new perspective on the existing bunkering and offers (sans sandhill, as an example) at least 4 ligit options of play.

Until recently it was covered with small saplings and brush.

Really quite interesting.

There is a distinct possibility a new tee could be added along that line of play at a length that would create all those options. Lots of thought needed for the “proper length”   :-)

I really would love to build this hole at "proper" yardage someplace.


From Patrick: "And, has there been any further discussion on the alternate tee on # 13, to the left rear of # 12 green ?"

Bill and I sort of "found" that tee about 2-3 years ago when we were discussing fairway expansion around the left side of 12-green with the expansion coming back to 12-green at the point where that (sort-of) “tee” meets the green.

No I don't see that happening as a permanent tee, although that is "one great" line of play to 13-green. Pat, I think there would be too many problems for the club using that tee permanently.

My suggestion would to just tee it up there, if agreed to by the players, occasionally, during a match or casual  round.

Also, the long landing strip 2nd tee (really ugly thing, it was) has been split and re-aligned to a better LOP. They are trying .... well, really more than trying, ....  to have carts drive around the LEFT side of #1-green to get to 2-tee.

Reasoning is two-fold:
   1.   to reduce/eliminate carts driving to the regular 2-tee.  
   2.   the plan is to expand the fairway to the right of the 1st green (up over the top of the hill and that line is actually rust to the right of the bunker in the face of the hill, short of the green. That might be a little hard to envision without being there, but its very interesting.
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2008, 10:48:44 PM »
George,

I maintain that a 13th tee left and long of # 12 green is inherently safer than the 13th tee short and right of # 12 green, especially when golfers walk from # 12 green to the next tee.

I also like the 2nd tee within the footpad of the 1st green.

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2008, 11:07:05 PM »
PM: "I maintain that a 13th tee left and long of # 12 green is inherently safer than the 13th tee short and right of # 12 green, especially when golfers walk from # 12 green to the next tee."

No one hits their ball long left to 12 unless it is a really bad shot (who knows, maybe by some "miracle" we wake up some morning and that tee might have magically grow during the night   :-)  )

Patrick, I agree but so far the club is not into it ,......... but stay tuned, it may still come about. The right side of 12 green going to 13 tee is the least safe area.



PM: "I also like the 2nd tee within the footpad of the 1st green."

I know, I thought they might go for it again....... that was the coolest tee I thing I've ever seen but they wanted to solve the long tee for hole 2 right now.  We'll see.
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

TEPaul

Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2008, 11:41:28 PM »
To go back to the initial question on this thread, I guess it would all depend on if or how well George Thomas knew NGLA or its 17th hole, wouldn't it?

In my opinion, and perhaps in Geoff Shackelford's, who very arguably knows and understands George Thomas' architecture better than anyone extant, Thomas just may've been the greatest conceptual genius golf architecture has ever known.

With people like that there come ideas that may turn out to be duds and ideas that just soar!

George Thomas wrote a book and in it he gave credit to those who he learned the most from. Is there any reason for any of us to doubt what he said in that book or add to what he didn't say in it?

James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2008, 12:02:19 AM »
Tom

I have lent my George Thomas book to a course supt, so I can't check it.  I assume he doesn't mention NGLA and CBMacDonald.  

Perhaps someone that he does mention was influenced by NGLA #17. That is, a second-hand influence.  Then again, perhaps not.

James B
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

Gerry B

Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2008, 09:00:50 PM »
as Thomas was from Philadelphia,  i can't see any reason  why he would not have visited NGLA at some point - maybe there is some reference somewhere

TEPaul

Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2008, 08:43:18 AM »
George Thomas mentions in his book as one of his primary influences Merion's Hugh Wilson who he describes as one of the best architects in the country even if he was a lifelong amateur architect, as was Thomas. I do not believe Thomas mentioned Macdonald or NGLA as an influence on what he did but perhaps he did---I'll check. Another influence he mentioned is Pine Valley and Crump as Wilson did for anyone interested in architecture.

We know that in the beginning Wilson and his committee depended on Macdonald and went to NGLA.

But we also know that some of the early architecture of Merion that may've reflected an influence by Macdonald and NGLA, such as the original "Alps" 10th hole was taken out a few years later. Essentially if Merion ever had any similarity in look and architectural style to NGLA and the National School it ridded itself of that look pretty early on!

In my opinion, Wilson and much of the Philly School developed its own looks and influences and over a rather short amout of time it became about as different from the National School as night is to day, and anyone who can't recognize or admit to that vast difference all I can say is that's your problem!

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2008, 12:37:27 PM »
I don't see the comparison myself because the tee shot demands for success are opposite.

On #17 at NGLA, a long long drive down the left line, over the junk,was required to be able to even see the putting surface.  If you laid up, you couldn't see the green, just the top of the flagstick.  Here's what you see when you lay up:



On #10 at Riviera, the best way to play the hole is to lay up way left in order to have a shot down the axis of the green.  This is just the opposite of NGLA #17.  The long long drive just gets in deep trouble up around the tiny, steeply sloped green as there is no good place to miss.  The ideal lay up is off to the left of the bunkers straight ahead:



Two great short par 4s, but I don't think the strategies compare.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2008, 12:39:24 PM »
George,

I maintain that a 13th tee left and long of # 12 green is inherently safer than the 13th tee short and right of # 12 green, especially when golfers walk from # 12 green to the next tee.

I also like the 2nd tee within the footpad of the 1st green.

Pat, this is also the tee from which you think #13 would play like #7 rather than #11 on the Old Course, right?  Great idea.

Michael Christensen

Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2008, 01:01:22 PM »
arns and phelps are not cult wines.....colgin, screaming eagle and harlan estate are true cult wines

bill M nailed the comparison.....even with pics! ;D

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2008, 05:27:13 PM »
George,

I maintain that a 13th tee left and long of # 12 green is inherently safer than the 13th tee short and right of # 12 green, especially when golfers walk from # 12 green to the next tee.

I also like the 2nd tee within the footpad of the 1st green.

Pat, this is also the tee from which you think #13 would play like #7 rather than #11 on the Old Course, right?  Great idea.

Bill,

That's correct, playing from the left, behind # 12 green replicates the shot into # 7 at TOC, while the right side tee replicates the shot from # 11 at TOC.

My theory is that CBM intended a dual nature to # 13.

If you look at the bunker configurations, the angles of attack, etc, etc.. # 13 can duplicate # 7 and # 11.

TEPaul

Re:Did 17 at NGLA influence 10 at Riviera?
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2008, 08:44:33 AM »
Patrick:

A couple of questions on your "theory" of what Macdonald intended on #13;

Do you know who put the bunker in and when that used to be where greenspace is now on the right?

Do you know if the right side that is now greenspace was greenspace while Macdonald was still alive and at that course?

Let's see if you have any decent answers to those questions so some of us can tell how far removed your "theory" may be from fact or not.  ;)