The latest outrage from Riviera

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

What has Whitten written or said about the results? If he is disappointed in the results I would hope he would bring it the attention of the golf world.

The sad thing about this situation is the fact it could have been a great success story. Who wouldn't want a faithful and sensative restoration of Riviera, unfortunately that wasn't the goal or the priority of any of the parties involved - the owner, the architect or the USGA. The owner it appears wants the US Open at all costs, perhaps so he might sell the club. The architect is not exactly a fan of classic architecture, preferring to focus on its shortcomings. He seems to be hell bent on 'fixing' those percieved short comings and at the same time placing his name next to as many of these beloved courses as possible. And especially the USGA, who has long history of altering classic courses and as far as I know has never hired/recommended an architect who is known for sensative/accurate restoration. Most of the great tragedies in remodeling courses have the USGA's fingerprints upon them.

I hope someday the USGA is headed by someone who cares about golf architecture and about preserving/protecting the art, so they might guide these clubs who are interested in holding a championship and prevent them from permenantly damaging these important works.

[TEPaul]

Brian:

Uh huh, I guess you did! But what remains now is for us it's some vague memory buried in 9th grade history books but for you all it's a daily, albeit slightly subconcious regret, spawned by the uncomfortable fact that whether you let us or not--we did win!!

[TEPaul]

You know this is a damn fascinating topic with all kinds of interesting cross-currents---our regulatory bodies that appear to have not held the line on the equipment used to play the game and are parties to corrupting classic courses to hide that fact. Or is it the manufacturers who have prosyletized and pushed all of us into this distance mess in the name of technology but driven only by interest in their own bottom lines?

Is it famous architects who have no real interest or respect for classic architecture or the contractors they use who don't have the talent to do proper work? Is it the owners, committees etc who seem not to understand what they have or how to preserve it? Or maybe it's just the American golfer, because basically, in numbers anyway, he doesn't seem to really care?

Maybe it's even the old guys who because of the possibility of all this should have planned for it better! The problem was not really one that was foreign to them or unthought of by them either!

But let's look at those old guys because at least one of them seemed to have seen things more clearly--seen the future well in advance, in other words.

That would be William Flynn!! He did something about it when he was allowed to with the design principle of "elasticity" which he certainly mentioned enough and which he even mentioned in 1927, and unbelievably that 8,000yd courses would be necessary if something wasn't done about distance! Things sure have changed in the 21st century from 1927, but we haven't gotten to the need for 8,000yds yet, so what must they have thought of him when he said that?

Who knows, but his Shinnecock is on the US Open's rota and is scheduled and ready to go, apparently not even being considered for corrupting redesign and also very little different from the way it was 1931!!

[Geoff Shackelford]

Tom Paul,
I'm hope I'm not up against anything, just trying to convey another point of view about the changes...but it ain't much of a slick PR machine I'm disagreeing with. Because if they were Clintonian slick, they would be more subtle in hiding such a glaring conflict of interest when they hired the spouse of the USGA staffer who came up with the beautiful 8th green concept! And if they were slick, they wouldn't write things like "George Thomas, welcome home!"  As for swimming up stream, I don't feel that's the case. The players who know Riviera are starting to make some strong and well-thought out comments about how awkward things look on 8. Scott McCarron has been very vocal, as was Steve Elkington on a local radio show.

But the lukewarm reaction of the USA announcers surprised me today since usually they try to be positive no matter what. Then again, I talked to Peter Oosterhuis when he saw the 8th green this morning...and he definitely conveyed some of his views on-air today. Peter is a well-versed and well-read student of design and he was a key figure in helping to preserve the course during the '93 greens project, and hopefully he will continue to voice his displeasure with the changes on the air.

Tom MacWood,
You mean you don't think David Fay is a student of design and an admirer of the classics as he and his pal Rees profess?  You are right though, Riviera could have been a great story, but if you knew the man running the show for the owner at Riviera, you'd understand why things have gone in such a poor direction, and I'm afraid, may get worse before they get better. I still expect them to go ahead with more silly changes, because the parties involved have not learned from their mistakes.

Regarding the USGA of the future, I wonder how much clout they will have in the game. As at the GCSAA show, the buzz at Riviera this week is how inept and arrogant the organization has become at the top, and how little hope there is that they will regain control of equipment, particularly the ball.
Geoff

[Brian Phillips]

Geoff,

The only positive thing I can see out of this is that you might get the re-design work with Tommy in ten years time when they finally realise what they have done!!!

Brian

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Brian,
No one knows Riviera better then Geoff Shackelford. To think that he would take this sitting down is a huge error in judgement.

Ted Robinson once did some remodel work at the Riv. (Work on the arroyos/barrancas and temporary greens )  given Ted's lack of talent, it is hard to believe that the quality of his work could supass that of Tom Marzolff/TomFazio.

[SPDB]

Tommy -
Call off your dogs. I asked a simple question that had nothing to do with the work being done - there's no reason to presumptively draw conclusions.

I have no axe to grind here; in fact, I've never even been to Riviera.

Does someone have a copy of the old overhead that they can post. please?

I noticed in some of the articles that the conditioning of the course is superb, though. Some player was noting that he is bouncing balls into greens from some 15-20 yards short them.

[Geoff Shackelford]

SPDB,
I don't think Tommy is making too big of a stretch to compliment Ted Robinson in this case. He made some odd suggestions for Riviera (filling in the barranca on 1), but in all of the memos I've seen, he never suggested moving greens, creating new holes or adding as many as 30 bunkers, so it's really not a stretch to say his perspective on the course was far more rational than the current take on what the layout needs.

Yes, the course is in superb condition considering the lousy growing conditions we've had, but I haven't seen too many bump and run shots into the greens like Esteban Toledo said he was hitting. The kikuyu is still quite unpredictable, and no player I've watched is hitting such an approach shot unless they are coming out of the rough, and even then, I would guess such an unpredictable play is not their first choice.
Geoff

[SPDB]

Geoff - I wasn't referring to the Ted Robinson quote. I was referring to his posting suggesting I shouldn't buy into the LA Times spin, when i never even suggested that. I was just asking an innocuous question whether it was Marzolf's or Moraghan's wife who coined the "restauration."

Sean

[Geoff Shackelford]

SPDB,
Sorry, I misunderstood. The "restauration" mistake was in the press packet compiled by Moraghan, which had plenty of other strange errors and weird items.
Geoff

[SPDB]

Geoff - looking back at it, I just noticed you corrected people's machiavellian slips.

The way I understand it, Tom Marzolf, who I think is a pretty accomplished arch when given an orig project (cf. Wade Hampton, Sand Ridge, Hudson Nat'l.), is desperately in need of the kind of attention that you can't get when you are working under a name arch. He also desperately wants it to be known that he is the new Open Doctor, not Rees, and more importantly, not Fazio.

I know guys who work on projects with him, and they say he has an almost single-minded obsession with this.

Its too bad, because at the end of the day, he will no doubt be more recognized for his redesign work (good or, more likely, bad), than he will be for some of the really good courses he has designed for fazio.

[johnk]

Given the view from this article - i.e. the pros are fine with the changes, but think 8 is a waste since it doesn't offer a viable choice, I want to know if that's the case for the regular golfer?

I don't recall seeing that take on #8 - a lot on GCA about the McBunker, but not about the viability of the two routes.

Are the pros missing the point? (clearly they are about the green, but that's pretty subtle for a pro Or are they right?

How accurate is the "restauration" of the alternate fairway compared to the Thomas original?  Maybe for the pros, Thomas' original options wouldn't be options anymore?

That's the problem with this whole situation, now I'm doubting Thomas...


http://www.dailynews.com/sports/articles/0202/15/spo15.asp

[BobB]

I played Riviera several days after the Nissan Open.  I talked to several members, and they all said that not one member is playing the left side of the eighth fairway.  Everyone goes right.

After closing the course to members for two weekends in order to hold the Nissan  Open, management  has  decided to punch all of the greens.   Management is obsessed with getting the 2008 US Open, but the word on the street is that the course changes have met with negative reviews.

[Paul Richards]

Bob,

The changes are getting negative reviews from whom?

Members?  The USGA?  The press?

Or just from GCAers?