George Thomas, Welcome Home!--Riviera #7

[Tim_Weiman]

SPDB:

Actually, I think the famous "Bridge" thread and the Riviera threads are different, at least insofar as Tommy's input.

With the Bridge, you have a course very FEW people have seen thus far.  Riviera, by contrast, is a course MANY people have seen or played.

When it comes to Tommy, he hasn't seen The Bridge, but does have first hand experience at Riviera.  

Mob mentality?  GCA has got to be the smallest group I've ever heard described as a mob!

[TEPaul]

GeoffC:

Don't know whether I answered your post but yes I suppose some of my posts on good restoration are 'wishful thinking'.

There sure are plenty of frustrations in the restoration process but the best policy is to just keep plugging away. It helps too to think of our friend Linc Roden! He was out there in the wilderness alone with his restoration ideas for many years, maybe even decades, but he just kept plugging away and as we all known finally some came around and eventually the entire membership came around too. Linc did some great research and also just kept stressing the commonsense of it all and eventually it happened.

Lou Duran:

I think an "In my opinion" on the processes of really good restoration would be a good thing too. Don't know whether I would be the right one to do it but it would be something very useful on this website if done really well!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

SPDB
I'm still confused by your frustration in not being able to compare the old with the new. Are you frustrated in your own inability to get your hands on 'The Captain', if so why bring it up? Whose fault is it if the debate is one sided? It seems to me if you wished to argue the otherside its your responsibility to come prepared, its tough to argue the otherside without doing your homework. In this case I don't think all the homework in the world is going to help -- which might be frustrating for some. Many times these one-sided arguements get characterized as bashing, especially by those on the 'wrong' side of the arguement. If you cann't argue your point effectively simply resort to calling the otherside unfair bashers or a mob.

As far dredging up The Bridge once again as an example of unfair and unqualified bashing - that is completely inaccurate. I remember that thread clearly. Paul Turner posted two photos from a magazine and asked for comments -- not unlike the bunker photos that Tommy posts and asks for analysis. Mike C. and RJ D., both expressed their opinions of what they saw in the photos. Neither rendered a judgement of the golf course, no one who had not seen or played the course rendered any judgement of the course. Pat M (who has never seen the course) and Matt W - the two resident Rees defenders - objected to any photographic analysis as unfair. My lone contribution was to defend those who were simply commenting on the photos. You obviously disagree and I'll be looking for you to refrain from all commentary on photos in the future.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

bm
I agree that photo does illustrate the amazing collection of shapes that Thomas created -- but the varrying collection does not translate into Fazio creating his own shape to add to the collection. In my opinion this collection is even more reason to protect the man's genius.

[cardyin2]

In the final analysis, isn't the question not how a new bunker compares with an old bunker, but whether a new bunker harmonizes with the existing style of the golf course?  I played Riviera when the bunker on No. 7 was being shaped. At the time it looked disproportionately large and too
"busy" to me.  The only reason I could see why it would extend so far to the left was to protect old No. 8 tee.  I was at Riviera for the tournament last week and saw it again with the grey, matching sand in it.  It still looked somewhat out of whack, but then Riviera has a number of different kinds and sizes of bunkers  For example, if there had been a smaller bunker in front of No. 4, what would people say about a new Fazio bunker that replaced it and  looks like the original?
By far the worst error, in my opinion, was at No. 8.  There is absolutely no way anyone ever would use the left fairway from the new tees.  The angle is diagonal, the left-side fairway bunker is in the landing area next to the dip and right-side trees make it much too narrow.  Unless they do something, they might as well plant wildflowers in the left fairway. I don't understand the thinking at all.

[Bryan Hoos]

Cardyin2

The reason the new fairway option on #8 is the ONLY option from the new tees, are the eucalyptus trees right of the old fairway.  Mr. Marzolf requested most be removed to substantiate what used to exist.  This would have opened up both fairways for play, with the choice being derived from the hole location.  The owner refused to remove any trees.

[SPDB]

bryan

very intriguing. should add to the conspiracy theory thicket.

[Bryan Hoos]

I believe they also wanted to remove some of the eucalyptus left of #13 which have grown to the point of tunneling the tee shot.  By removing the trees, they would make the 13th a cape hole with the barranca running down the left. (I am not sure if that was the original intent of Mr. Thomas)  Again, no dice from the owner.  He apparantly has a thing for eucalyptus.

[Gib_Papazian]

Well, as long as we are going to go back and restore bunkers  and remove  trees, how about addressing the REAL problem at Riviera?

That steel wool that passes for turfgrass does more (IMHO) to destroy the original intent of the Captain's architecture than the stupid looking bunker that started this thread.

Of course, before we douse the place with Roundup, my vote would be to execute the Riviera club management by firing squad and install Geoff as  "Dictator for Life."

[TEPaul]

Hey, look, Gib, when it comes to who you think should oversee Riviera, just stop pussyfooting around and say it like you really think it should be, would ya?

[Geoff Shackelford]

Bryan,
That sounds quite likely with Watanabe and the trees, and in this case, I have to applaud his stubborness. But the Fazio firm prides itself in client-first architecture, so blaming the client would be contrary to that philosophy I would think.

Even if Mr. Marzolf and Mr. Moraghan get their way in removing these trees, the options will still not work on #8, trees or no trees, all because of the silly new green design and the tee location/excessive length. The shot in from the left has lost its preferable angle to the front hole locations because of Moraghan's hilarious Pinehurst green concept, which was universally laughed at during the Nissan (it's so bad that members and fans of the course literally laugh at it...).

So taking the trees out will only make a bad situation look worse and remove something irreplaceable (60 year old eucs). Same problem with 13, they'll take a tree lined course and create two holes with no aesthetic connection to the rest. This is a place where compromise will have to take place, and some acceptance of the course evolution has to be considered, but clearly isn't. I really wonder if anyone involved thinks of basic architectural concepts when they do this work, or if they make it up as they go along? Riviera deserves better.

The recent U$GA recommendations also call for removing sycamores behind #16 to get another 10 or so yards. These are the same trees that add so much to the character of the place and which Thomas himself worked around, after all, they had been there a couple of hundred years when he laid out the course. Hopefully Watanabe will prevent this disaster from happening as well. They have already mangled or removed a couple of sycamores in the grove, including one really cool dead one that had two smaller trees sprouting out of it. It had character, so it had to go I guess. Taking out any more would be a huge mistake, but would not surprise anyone based on what has taken place so far, and worse, what's planned.
Geoff

[Tim_Weiman]

Geoff:

Thanks for your input on this topic.  I'm quite disappointed with what is happening at Riviera, but really appreciate your contribution to the discussion.

Keep up the good work.

[TEPaul]

I've never played Riviera but I stood out there on #8 when the (whatever they call it) was under construction. The new tee was roughed in and the right fairway was cleared. I stood there for the longest time trying to figure out how anyone would play the left fairway. There was a considerable amount of trees between the two fairways and eventually I just started counting up what I thought would have to be the minimum removed to make things work. I even wrote that amount down somewhere and probably have it around here somewhere.

Geoff:

The new tee on #8? Was it moved to the right some as well as back to come more inline with the right fairway and maybe more out of angle with the left fairway?

Also the green on #8? When did they start to redo the green? They hadn't done anything back last March with the green had they?

[Bryan Hoos]

Mr. Shackelford

Thanks for the further input.  I have a honest question, though.  If the eucalyptus are only 60 years old, and #8 did used to have two fairways, are the trees inconsistent with Mr. Thomas's original design of the hole (new green changes besides)?  Would removing them allow those holes (8 & 13) to play closer to Mr. Thomas's intent or no?  I am just curious.

[Geoff Shackelford]

Bryan,
First, it's Geoff, not Mr.  Second, the aerials and a canyon-top photo make it extremely clear that trees were planted quite densely in the places now earmarked for removal. Since Thomas was tinkering with the course as late as 1929 and the trees are all there in those aerials, I'd suspect he and Billy Bell signed off on their planting and understood the ramifications (that they'd grow up). So I'd guess based on the evidence that his intent was to have the trees play a role in separating the optional routes.
Geoff

[TEPaul]

Geoff:

Here's a good question for you, particularly when it comes to Riviera, Thomas and his apparent intention to use trees in the strategies of a hole like Riv's #8--clearly a most interesting design to look at with those trees.

How well did Thomas know Flynn? And do you know of times they may have been together on a design project--any project?

For instance, I think you and I have talked about Flynn and Thomas at Pine Valley maybe being together or running into each other--it might have been when we were talking about right #9 at Pine Valley quite a long time ago.

However, you can clearly see that neither Flynn nor Thomas designed right #9 at PV--there is no doubt that Alison did! But Flynn or Thomas might have come over there together and overseen the actual construction of Alison's design.

And if they did that maybe Flynn gave Thomas an earful on some of his very one dimensional/high shot demand ideas on the use of trees in golf strategy!

[Bryan Hoos]

Geoff

Thanks.

[Geoff Shackelford]

Tom,
The only thing I've come across regarding Thomas and Flynn working together was a magazine article referring to Thomas traveling east to visit Pine Valley in the late 20s to help his friend Flynn, or words to that effect. What was actually done, seems a bit confusing, as do many things about Pine Valley's evolution (including present day work).

Thomas did not accept trees that would "spoil a shot" (as he wrote so beautifully), but he did periodically use trees to create options (double fairway split by oak on 12 at Stanford) or incorporate them quite beautifully to accentuate a green complex (sycamore on 12 at Riviera).
Geoff

[Jeff_Brauer]

Geoff,

Not to play devils's advocate here, but an interesting thought crossed my mind.....Do we know for sure the original 8th hole really worked very well?

I know we hate to speculate, although it is necessary.  For example, you speculate that Thomas and Bell signed off on the trees, but do we know?  I know I return to courses to find greens chairmen have planted trees without much regard to the plan.

I also know that it is hard to design a double fairway hole where the options are really equal.  Over time, one usually becomes preferred.  If the flood washed it out in '38, I would guess that the depression or rumblings of war simply made it uneconomical (if that's a word) to rebuild, and realization of increased runoff from urbanization of the area may have made it seem impractical, but there is a chance that they didn't because they felt they weren't losing any play value, no?

Perhaps no one ever used the right fairway, or at least enough to justify it?  Is anyone left at the club who remembers it, or is there any documentation?

[Geoff Shackelford]

Jeff,
Knowing Thomas was adding bunkers and tees in advance of the 29 LA Open and even wrote an article about his thoughts, makes it pretty likely that he could take out any trees he wanted too. The club did not have a green committee in the early days, so it was his course to toy with and he did. The trees in question were actually planted during construction based on another picture dated close to opening so I don't see how there is much grey area regarding their placement or role, unless of course, one is trying to justify poor research or poor results or poor judgement. Which unfortunately, is often the case with the many bad redo's we are seeing. Maybe the next spin will be that cutting the trees down would be  restoring it back to 1925, before the course was built!

As for how the 8th hole played, I've interviewed two people who played it, including one very sharp man who played it with Bobby Jones and who was a fine and noted amateur golfer, along with another man who caddied on opening day for Thomas's group. Both had great memories of the hole, and insights into the facets of how it played, or at least, how they played it. I'd love to share this, but Lord knows how this would be used in the next press release.

Willie Hunter, the pro at the time Riviera had the flood came through, did not restore #8 because the club was almost broke and then the war came along and Riviera struggled for the next 20 years. His son Mac, who followed his dad as pro, backs this story up and then some with other great stories about what Willie did to keep Riviera afloat (no pun intendend). Willie filled in the bunker on 7 because the fairway had shrunk and was unplayable with it and they did not have the resources to put it back. They also filled in a great bunker on 12, one on 6, all for the same reasons. They also abandoned the par-3 course during this time.

All of this information is documented, or could be obtained and assimilated through interviews, research, etc. So you can play Devils Advocate and ask things like how do we know, how could we ever know, and be right in questioning what worked and what didn't, but at the end of the day, the "restoration" has failed and any future efforts will not succeed because the club wants to get a US Open, and they feel they have to do what the USGA staff wants or what Mr. Latshaw wants (well, they nixed his irrigation pond thankfully). The work will be dictated by these latter factors, few of which have to do with the restoration that it claims to be, so the facts are really secondary at best in this situation.
Geoff

[Jeff_Brauer]

Geoff,

Thanks for the info.  I recall seeing your Riv. history, but did not pick up a copy when there.  Not even sure if I would have been allowed to pick up a copy, but should have tried!

Of course, I knew you had done lots of research on the course, but didn't know how much was available.  At many clubs, the information is simply gone, (usually in clubhouse fires) or has never been looked at.  When they find stuff, they are usually dismayed at changes (Oh, the greens committee rebuilt the greens in 53, and we didn't know that, or "We thought Ross did this, but what are these old blueprints from a land planning firm doing in our files" are two examples from my experience) as they are not as thorough as you were at Riv.

I stand by two statements of opinion I have made in this thread - It's hard to do a double fairway hole that doesn't gain a preferred route over time, and it may not be possible to do a restoration and apply for a major tournament on the same course.

I am not going to dispute your assertion that its a complete flop, as you would know better than I.  Some of my original speculation has been answered by subsequent posts as to why it doesn't work on 7 or 8.  On the other hand, I realize that almost any renovation to a high profile course is bound to come in for it's share of criticisms and what ifs.  It's hard work, and I sympathize with any architect charged with that responsibility.

[Geoff Shackelford]

Jeff,

You write: "I stand by two statements of opinion I have made in this thread - It's hard to do a double fairway hole that doesn't gain a preferred route over time, and it may not be possible to do a restoration and apply for a major tournament on the same course."

Agreed, I've always felt it would be very difficult to restore #8 with the trees the way they are, the hazards sterilized at Riviera and the trouble of balancing all of the elements involved in making the options at least somewhat tempting. If attempted, the double fairway certainly should at least make the players consider their options, but even that did not occur. And sadly, amateur armchair architects spotted this problem coming as soon as the work was finished, so why couldn't the experts see it coming?

And you are right, throw in the wacky ideas from Far Hills, and restoration is next to impossible when a major championship is involved. Yet, in most cases, someone is willing to take the job (sometimes for free?!?), make the compromises necessary, and seemingly have few regrets in labeling the work as something it's not.

So in that light, I can't sympathize with the architect who is "charged with this responsibility," particularly when it's not the firm's specialty and they are offering their services for free.  If the architect senses the project is not something that it's being portrayed as, he has to step up and clarify what is being done and why, and it will cut down on much of this criticism. Instead, the "restoration" shield is thrown up to attain praise, adulation and greater name recognition, and plenty of people buy it. But the bold statements about Thomas's vision having been restored are insulting declarations to others when you see things in print like the proposition that restoring the right fairway will free up the left side fairway for corporate tents. It's just sad that so many higher-ups in golf get so enamored with free advice and one week of tournament golf, that they forget about honesty, integrity and the long term enjoyment of the course.

So I think the criticism has been quite fair and will be even more dramatic if the next wave of redesign goes forward and is portrayed as restoration.

Geoff

[Dan Kelly]

In the spirit of Scott Burroughs' wonderful Aerial of the Day (any day!), I offer a "literary" challenge -- with but one question:

Who wrote this letter to the editor in Golf World? (Two rules: [1] If you KNOW the answer, please maintain your silence; and [2] You are not allowed to look up the answer, but must answer based solely on the evidence at hand.)

Here's the letter:

"Is Geoff Shackelford saying the USGA is burning the candle at both ends? Is he saying that in order to protect par, the USGA is encouraging the lengthening of existing golf courses, especially classic courses, and in the process destroying the underlying, brilliant architecture of those courses? Is he saying that the USGA is opposed to current and continued technological improvement in the ball and equipment resulting in vastly increased distance, which is having an adverse effect upon the game? What does the USGA say about this inherent conflict?"

Guesses, anyone?

Answers, Geoff S.?