Riviera's Latest Outrage

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Your comment about Gil Hanse accepting criticism for things beyond his control is noteworthy.  FYI, I saw Tom Fazio do exactly the same thing during the process of recruiting members for Sand Ridge.

A perspective member essentially touched on the same topic that Tom MacWood has raised, specifically, how well the wetlands were incorporated strategically in the design of holes.

I knew from seeing previous routing plans that Tom Fazio and his team had considered that issue but that there were permitting constraints on what might have been more ideal.

Nonetheless, Fazio took responsibility himself.

From the point of view of a student of golf architecture, I would probably be happier with more openness about all the constraints an architect faces in the design process.  But, given the politics of such situations, I think Fazio acted quite honorably.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

I'll tell you a few things I can almost definitely garner about Tom Fazio. One, he takes enormous interest and pride in solving problems that other architects might not have the ability, capacity or inclination to solve. He takes enormous pride in solving things like environmental problems and actually making things better than if nothing was done with golf in the first place.

His work definitely shows this time and again. It may cost but he does it and does it well.

The second thing I've always heard about Tom Fazio from  people who know him or have only met him and may not even really admire his work much--that is that he truly is a very nice man! That seems to be almost the first thing everyone says about him. So what you said there about him would certainly not surprise me!

[Tom Anderson]

Tom M:

I think that what I specifically wrote about Riviera was how it has changed from George Thomas's original.  I made no mention or inclination of a familiarity with Fazio's work at Riviera and I said I neither condone or defend his renovation work because of my general lack of specific knowledge.  Yes, I have seen some old photos from one of Riviera's former superintendents and yes, I have played it once.  I do not think this qualifies me to have much of an informed opinion.  My 'basic' knowledge on the topics I comment on I am comfortable with.

Yes.  Precisely.  I think Tom Fazio is one hell of an architect and yes, I know little specifics on his renovation work.  I never said I did not care about it.  I simply am not in a position to know enough to comment from an knowing viewpoint.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

ET. AL.,

If Ernie Ransome was in charge of the project would you feel more comfortable about the work and results ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Not without a change in contractors.  

You can't ask a commercial graphic designer to faithfully reproduce Vincent's "Sunflowers".  

You also can't run projects with lower-level associates in charge and expect to get anything better than the level of effort expended from the top, which is frankly minimal.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

We disagree.

How did Fazio do such a good job at Pine Valley ?

Read Jack Welch's book, "Jack" some people are cabable of delegating the work and obtaining a quality product, just ask
Donald Ross.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Who were the contractors involved at Pine Valley's "Short Course"?  Were they the ubiquitous "Mickey D's" of contracting, or were specialists well-familar with PV doing the actual groundwork?  I don't know the answer to that question, but I suspect it's the latter.

I have not played the Short Course, but it looks good from the pictures I've seen.  On the other hand, I've heard some mixed reviews from those who have.  Still, "from pictures", the course looks well-done to me and I believe they have successfully emulated the look and shot values of the wonderful original course.

And yes, Ross was able to accomplish a lot with the help of some really, really talented associates.  That doesn't mean that every architect has such good fortune.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

The crew responsible for the bunker work at the short course was a bunch of rank amateurs at new bunker construction, the Pine Valley maintainance crew.

Now, if they can do it under Fazio's supervision and Ernie Ransomes vision, so can almost anybody else in the golf course construction business.

It depends upon the STYLE of bunker one wants to create, and many firms are capable of building a bunker in the style desired by the architect/club.  Do I conceed that some are better craftsman than others, sure, but the field isn't as limited as you may think.

What firm is doing the bunker work at Doak's project in Texas
What firm did the work at Pacific Dunes ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

That's a great question.  

If I understand the way he works, I believe Tom Doak relies on a handful of close associates who do the detail work THEMSELVES, perhaps relying on a contractor to do rough shaping.  

Perhaps he can answer here for himself.

However, I think your question brings up a significant point.  Guys like Doak have purposefully limited the amount of projects they take on at any given time, and spend tremendous amounts of time onsite to attend to those details properly.

Do you think Tom Doak would have accepted the Merion restoration project if he was told the work was to be done by ubiquitous contractors who didn't directly report to him, who have zillions of concurrent projects, and that the work to completely reconstruct all 100+ bunkers was to be done in under 8 months?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I return to Donald Ross and the results he achieved.

Some people are intricately involved with every aspect of a project.

Some people are reluctant to delegate, prefering the retention of control.

Some people pick good associates, or good sub-contractors and delegate everything but major decisions, like a good field general.

Each has their own way of operating and each can be successful using their prefered modis operendi.

But, those who micro manage a project at every level are restricted in their ability to be prolific.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Your question about Ernie Ransome is interesting.

Tom Fazio has been the consulting architect at both Pine Valley and Riviera and, if I'm not mistaken, Tom Marzolf has been the design associate on site at both venues.  Yet, perceptions of the work done at Pine Valley and Riviera differ greatly.

Why is that?  How significant has Ransome's influence been?

While I would certainly give Ransome all the credit in the world for his leadership, I wonder if other factors are equally important.  Clearly, there is a relationship between the architecture of Pine Valley and the fact that changes to the course have been minimized.

Here I don't just mean to simply suggest that Pine Valley is so good that changes aren't necessary.  Rather, I'm referring to a particular feature of the design, specifically, the absence of galley space making PV an excellent venue for amateur events but unattractive for large professional tournaments.

Pine Valley differs from venues like Riviera in that seeking a US Open is just not what the place is all about.  The ideal event for PV is a Walker Cup, which I so much enjoyed in 1985.

By not seeking professional events, Ransome & Co, have been able to focus on preserving PV's architecture and minimizing changes.  My understanding is that Marzolf has softened a few of the greens, changes largely motivated by today's faster green speeds.  But, really, there hasn't been much else done.

What I'm suggesting is that keeping professionals off classic courses may do more to explain the preservation of great architecture than anything else done by people like Ernie Ransome or architecture firms like Fazio.

Let me cite several examples.

Ballybunion:  Several years ago the club hired favorite son Tom Watson to make some subtle changes.  But, the changes were so subtle I doubt most visitors would even notice.  It is true that some members looked forward to the club hosting the 2000 Irish Open, but really, most members view the course as something for the members first and travelling visitors second.  Attracting professional events doesn't rank as a priority (other than the millinenum Irish Open).

Crystal Downs:  Is there any doubt the place is run with an emphasis on member play and absolutely no interest attracting professional events.  Hence, the architecture is preserved.

NGLA:  Essentially the same situation as Crystal Downs.

Chicago Golf Club:  I stopped in a few weeks ago to check out Tom Doak's work and preparations for the 2005 Walker Cup.  I'd say the situation is very similiar to Ballybunion.  The club has no interest in professional events and the work Tom is doing could barely be noticed.

So, Pine Valley, Ballybunion, Crystal Downs, NGLA and Chicago Golf Club all keep the pros away and successfully preserve what Crump, Simpson, Mackenzie and MacDonald created.

Riviera is a different animal: They are trying to attract professional events.  So, plans like tearing up #14 are considered when, I'm reasonably certain, most members hardly find it a pushover.

I've yet to see John Zimmers' work over at Oakmont under the guidance of Fazio, but, here again, one finds the desire to attract professional events as the driving force.  That's Oakmont.  That's the Pittsburgh culture, a macho desire to erect another "steel curtain" for the pros. It's all about winning another Super Bowl.

If the USGA doesn't act to restrict the ball, keeping the pros out may be the only way to preserve classic architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

I posted similar thoughts on Augusta, and the problems associated with serving of two masters.

My Riviera post dealt more with the nuts and bolts.

Some on this site were complaining about Fazio's bunker work at Riviera.  My point was that if Ernie Ransome owned Riviera, the way he owns/runs Pine Valley, the bunker work would turn out as he intended it, in the context of the basic design principles at Riviera, and everyone would be happy.

My point was that in some instances it is the will of the membership/owner that shapes the golf course, not the architect chosen to oversee the work.

[Brian Schneider]

Re: Pine Valley

Pat- I think you underestimate the people who are really responsible for the work at Pine Valley, primarily superintendent Rick Christian.  You may also overstate Tom Fazio's personal involvement there.  

Tim- Blake Bickford, not Tom Marzolf, is the associate assigned to Pine Valley.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I think most people here would be happier if Ernie Ransome owned/ran Riviera, but I can't see him in LaLa Land!

Brian Schneider:

Thanks.  I thought Marzolf was involved a few years back (??), but I wasn't sure of the current assignments.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom Anderson,
I'm not sure if you are refering to me or David Kelly on the review of Ocean Trails, and if it was me, I can back you up somewhat on what kind of a golf course could have been originally put on that site if it wasn't for at least one of the supposed greedy Zuckerman's. (I have heard things in regard to Ken as being a very up-front guy who has tried to make do with this terrible situation that has occured there, and things of little regard to his brother who is now forbidden from even walking on the grounds)

Yes, it was a sad thing for Pete Dye. And pushing the whole thing on to Perry was either a horrible paternal punishment or a lesson in humility.

But now on to Fazio at Riviera.  Last time I checked, Tom Marzloff works for Fazio. Designs courses and oversees "restaurations" under his name, so for me, If Fazio's architects are on it, then he is responsible--period!

Please tell me how a ramp on to this new 8th fairway figures into this restauration at Riveira? How about a bunker that not only is 2/3rds longer, doesn't look anything like the original, and makes little sense since over a third of the fairway it once guarded was washed away in a flood? What about the Great Pyramid of Cheops that has been recreated on the 5th? (Has Tom Marzloff and Dr. T. Fazio been visiting the offices of Desmond Muirhead, and this is their first venture into the world of symbolism?)

While you have always steadfastly recognized that many of us on architecture on this website are clueless on your business, or as Joe Logan of the Philly Inquirer would write, "Unknowledgable" I find it quite interesting that you do not wish to debate the person who knows the most about Riviera--Geoff Shackelford. (Not that he wishes to discuss it with anyone from the Fazio organization.) I will put it to you as this, and I',m assuming I have told your persona this before, I will meet you anywhere/anytime on any Fazio project to show you what I think is the error and the misguided ways of his designs. I'm willing to prove my point off-line--in person--to show you that I am not a mean person and that I do in fact really study golf courses and take pride and passion in it. If you want to call that unknowledgeable afterward--that would be your opinion after you have judged the book and its cover after reading it. (Me)

Have you ever been critical of any work that Tom Fazio has done, or is just a firm prerequisite that you have to call even the most mediocre of his designs, "Great"?

Now realizing that I have little to speak positive of the King, I will have you know that I do wish that he could do something provocative and interesting that could grab my attention to warrant the praise he would deserve for doing so.  If one hole (#9) and a two greens at Shady Canyon are the extent of it, maybe its time to retire and spend more time with the Boys and Girls Club of Hendersonville.

All my best, and I do hope you someday knock my socks off with a great design worthy of praise. I really mean that.

I also want to add that I think it is great to have you posting here on GCA. I do think that somewhere in all of this that there be a happy medium where we can all see designs, no matter whose name is on them as high art and worthy of our intense study. I can only hope that this post doesn't offend, but that the critical element can be examined and studied for its worth--no matter how misguided it may seem. (I hate containment, and will say that it is ruining most modern designs.)

Cheers

[Bob Fishler]

To Hell with Riviera.  I'm tired of reading about that course and its problems.  

Isn't it obvious that the owners just want a US Open so that they can increase the value of the course and then sell it?  

Why do we keep debating the merits of the changes?  They have no merits.  The changes are solely business-oriented.

The latest change is to make No. 15 a 495-yard par four by moving the tee back 50 yards.  What's next?

[TEPaul]

In the broad scheme of things, I think some of us are beginning to understand that to move a tee back 50yds, as on #15 Riviera, is not that big a deal architecturally provided that you have the room (elasticity) and don't have to change anything else to do it.

But when you start getting into changing things on the bodies of the holes, that's a different matter. And to change or move a green is ten times worse!