The Greatness Of Riviera

[Tommy_Naccarato]

No one can expouse the greatness of Riviera more then Geoff Shackelford. No one has taken more time to study the course then him. I say this with all due confidence, knowing that it may be going on deaf ears.

Riviera-The Club has taken some pretty strong (But deserved) hits the last few days, and its unfortunate that the golf course has to be the final victim. I don't think golf courses were ever meant to be political, and unfortunately we all have done a good job at making them just that.

So this is the section where we should celebrate the greatness of the course itself. Put the little guy walkng on the red carpet in stilts off to the side and state why Riviera is so special.

Is it the vast Spanish-style clubhouse hugging the hil over-looking the terrain fo the course or is it the way you are placed in front of all the on-lookers at the clubhouse while teeing off, expected to hit you best shot in front of everyone, from the elevated tee of the first?

Is it because of its undeniably supreme routing where the vantage point form the clubhouse lets you see five seperate holes in play at any given moment?

Is it the bunkering which just like the once great Merion's, has evolved into a stately essence that claims its place in the upper-heirarchy of competitve golfing grounds the game has to offer?

Is it the thrill of trying to draw the ball on to the fourth, knowing you don't have the distance to do so, but still try it everytime, or is it actually having the distance knowing that you will hopefully not end up in that nasty depression that occupies the entire left side of the green front?

Is it the thrill of not knowing where the ball ended up after hitting over the hill on 18?

Is it the decisions that must be made, and the temptation to try somehting different on the tee of the 10th?

Riviera is a great place, and it deserves the best the game has to offer to restore it to greatness.

Joe-I think that ball just went in the hole!
Tommy-I think your right, it just sort of disappeared! Lynn, I think you just sunk it!
Lynn-Really? ? ? ?
Dialog of Lynn Shackelford sinking it for eagle off of the fairway on #12-August 21, 2000 An unbelievable shot.

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

Have never been there, and hardly ever watch the Nissan, but recall that early par 3 with the trap in the middle of the green. Wish one of the Riviera regulars would discuss that hole, and how it plays.

Olympic's clubhouse setting always reminds me of Riviera's, and vice-versa, as they are both set up the slope to the golfer's left of the 18th. Great natural amphitheatres. Riviera's is the kind of strong, manly finish to a golf course I like.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy (and Geoff)

One of my favorite architectural memories is sitting on a plane with Lanny Wadkins listening to about two hours of how to drive the ball at Riviera.  When Golf Magazine asked pros to rate their top ten courses, he put it near the top  and failed to include, among others, Cypress Point.  I asked him why, and had time to get a full answer!

When Lanny was in his prime, he was one of a handful of tour players who would work his tee shots left, right, high, low, lots of roll, little roll, use the cross slope, negate the cross slope, etc.  Shots you and I can't hit as consistently as he could.  

He felt Riviera required more different tee shot patterns than any course in the world.  My  view as an average player, and one who has only played Riviera at this time of year, when it is not as attractive as in summer, was not quite as high, until hearing his explanation.

Now it is.  And despite concerns about the new bunkers etc., I think Lanny would be against changes, but feel (using him as representative of good players) that if they don't alter the grades of the fairways, and hole routings and patterns, that it will remain a great test.  The basics in place  are that good.

[Bob_Huntley]

Gary Smith:

The 6th at Riviera when I played there, was about 175-180 yds from the back markers. A barranca eased along the front of the green. The shot was a good mid-iron flighted high to hold the green. Depending where the flag was placed  required a fade or draw and when executed properly, was one of the joys in playing the course. At the time we used to chip across the bunker if we were caught on the wrong side, I understand that is now verboten.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Some interesting stuff here.

Bob, I remember once seeing Bob Gilder play a chip over the bunker from the lower right of the green.

He promptly got down in two after that.

Jeff, I think one really has to see the track record or the vision of the people making the current decisions on how Riviera should play, and realize just how much the course could really be harmed or changed forever.

Whats the next step, filling in the swale of the green on #15? May adding another Mayan pyramid tee on 18 so you can see where your tee shot is going!

(Actually, it has been rumoured that the powers that be (the USGA) have suggested that adding more bunkers that never existed is the next step to this "Restoration." As Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lector would say, "Goody, goody!"

How nice that you have the powers that be in Far Hills dictating changes to classic design!

[ian andrew (Guest)]

There are times that I am greatful that the PGA hits courses like Pebble and Riviera......and there are times I wished the stuck to the TPC of (insert city name here). So many courses are being altered for one week....occasionally the work is great...but too often it just makes me cringe.

Riviera is still great, but your note has got me nervous.

[Leslie_Claytor]

I'm surprised this post didn't elicit more commentary.  I've had the pleasure of studying and sketching Riviera a bit over the past year and find it to be one of the finest tests of golf I've experienced.  It's hard to find any weakness with the course.  

It's interesting to me that people actually think the site is a natural site not requiring heavy constructuion.  In fact, quite the opposite was true, but Thomas and Bell did a fine job of blending the features and hiding fill with bunkers. Site drainage also plays an important part in the design of features with the constant slope of the river bed always requring subtle undulation to divert water from features.

The routing is superb. The starting sequence is brilliant with number one offering birdies, then 2-4 requiring seatbelts. Holes 12-16 back into the wind is a brutal stretch for testing a golfer's endurance.  The bunkering overall is as fine as I've encountered both in individual detail and placement strategy.  The greens offer unlimited variety in size shape and slope without being over the edge in difficulty.

Perhaps the most enduring quality of Riviera is the visual intricacy of the course.  Quite simply, the holes provide great balance and visual composition from an infinite number of angles.   Try sketching number four, fifteen, six, eighteen, ten, etc., and you can find unlimited angles offering appealing compositions.  The features, although bold, harmonize with the typically mellow green surrounds, and the flowing fairways producing desired balance.  

I could go on and on about Riviera.  

[TEPaul]

I've heard a lot of things about Riviera recently on these threads about and from the USGA, Fazio/MacDonald, the ownership, the US Open in 2008, the restoration, restauration, redesign, whatever it is etc.

Maybe, I didn't read those threads carefully enough but what I don't recall at all is why did they do this in the first place? What was wrong with Riviera? Did any of these people identify something specifically wrong with Riviera that needed fixing, restoring, whatever? Is the only reason they made these changes simply to get the Open in 2008? Who told any of these people there was anything wrong with Riviera in the first place?

In other words, is it getting to be automatic that the club is supposed to do something if they get into Open consideration even if the course doesn't need to have anything at all done to it?

[Chip Royce]

Good for you Tommy to "turn the other cheek" on this one. I personally am appalled at the renovations to the course, but I am able to think back to my visit there in 1996, pre-renovations, and enjoy fond memories of such a wonderful course.

To me, the greatness of Riveria lies in two holes... the 6th and the 10th. Each of these, were experienced early in my exposure to classic courses and the architectural greatness that lies in such special places.

The 6th? The donuoght green shows that quirkiness and character contribute to making a course memorable.

The 10th - all I can say is wow. When I visited the 2nd green complex has just begun construction and I was amazed to learn a number of things from this hole:
 - how many different paths to the green can be created on a short par 4
 - how a severly sloped green can put teeth into a hole that could be considered benign due to its lack of length.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Les, Chip and Tom, great commentary by all.

Early this morning I had a conversation with one of the particpants on this board who has not seen Riviera, and was quite shocked a person of his integrity, make a highly inaccurate statement about the routing of Riviera, which like Les, I'm totally enamored with.

A question to all of you, Would you not agree that Riviera is like a classroom on the subject of Golf Architecture? Better yet, could it be considered a university of higher learning? Taking into fact that the course is "Constructed." (while still utilizing features that the site offered.)

For me, there is so much to learn from Riviera, and so much that needs to be left alone. Hopefully the powers that be can see this too.

[TEPaul]

TommyN:

Yes, I would say that Riviera definitely is a classroom, a case study, for really good architecture. As to the exact lessons one can learn from it I only have a bit of a glimpse. I've never played the course, only spent a half day walking very slowly through the entire course looking at every aspect and detail of it--in many cases measuring various aspects. And then the only way I can start to understand how those architectural aspects come into play is to watch the LA Open, which I've been doing for a number of years.

If someone asked me to explain in detail the exact strategies and strategic ramifications of Riviera I could probably do it to some degree but would certainly struggle as to the nuances, I guess. Some holes are quite obvious in their strategic ramifications and brilliance, like #10, #4 and some of the others and other holes are far more subtle and more difficult to understand.

But if a golf club, and any golf club, of the architectural stature of a Riviera was concerned about the strategies and the nuances of them in this day and age and even in the context of today's touring pros, they owe it to themselves and to the golf course to analyze those strategies in real detail to understand as totally as they can how those strategies are doing today, how they can be maintained and preserved, if they may have been altered in some interesting ways by the games of the touring pros BEFORE they launch into changing the physical aspects of the holes--the bodies of the holes, in other words.

I really don't think I have that much problem with adding tee length to Riviera, or any course, but only if it can be done in such a way that it has clear value in maintaining and preserving original strategies somehow (or creating better ones if at all possible) and only if those tee length increases can be done in such a way as to be very reversible (or just occasionally usable) and in such a way as to not tamper with any aspect of that hole or any other hole, if you know what I mean. No rearranging, adding or subtracting of bunkering, no moving or redesigning of greens or anything about them, including the fairways, their meaning etc.

If any of that sort of thing must be done for some reason a real understanding of what it means strategically should and must be completely analyzed and understood BEFORE any kind of restoration, rennovation or redesign planning, much less actual construction work, takes place.

I'm not certain how well the people involved in the restroration work at Riviera really understand these strategic ramifications. Maybe they do but I woudn't be the slightest bit surprised if they don't, or at least don't understand them that well. By the strategic ramifications I mean both those of Thomas/Bell and those that are present today in the context of this new equipment and in the hands of today's touring pros compared to Thomas/Bell's.

And for that understanding a good amount of research needs to be done, in my opinion, both for valid look and valid strategic meaning. Again, I don't know how well Fazio/Marzolf or even those who control the club or those who work for the USGA understand those strategic ramifications and nuances either originally or today. But I'm quite certain that Geoff Shackelford does.

I think it's unfortunate for Riviera that those parties did not get together and discuss those strategies in detail, their meaning and nuances in detail too and then analyzed every aspect of how they could be maintained. In this kind of analytical effort I very much believe that not only architectural details should be discussed in everyway but also how the so-called "maintenance meld" could be utilized in any and every way possible to maintain those strategic ramifications.

At the end of the day I think such an exhaustive analysis (with Geoff involved in explaining Thomas/Bell's orginal strategic ramifications) could determine what is doable in perserving those strategic ramifications and what isn't. And again, all this should have taken place BEFORE and architectural changes were planned or put into effect.

If after all this it becomes apparent that nothing can be done or not enough can be done to the golf course to perserve these strategic ramifications in the context of today's touring pros and their modern equipment then an honest admission of that should be made by the golf club, The USGA, Fazio/MacDonald and GeoffShac and it should be recommended by all that the Tour pros go somewhere else or something should be done to bring those tour pros and their equipment back into line with the strategic ramifications of Thomas/Bell's Riviera.

To me that's an honest architectural analysis that takes the golf course and ALL ITS ASPECTS into consideration first. To change the course, to mutate it away from what Thomas/Bell designed as to its true strategic ramifications and meaning should not be an option, in my opinion.

There are a lot of realities here that some of those involved probably have not dealt with real well, but the bottom line is, yes, I think Thomas/Bell's Riviera probably is an architectural classroom or case study and that it should not be changed, because if it is changed and changed in incorrect ways both the architecture and it considerably sophisticated strategies will probably be changed too and probably lost forever.

I think that's what Geoff Shackelford was saying in his article.

[A_Clay_Man]

A wisde and experienced gentleman once made the observation that:

When someone is having a good time, someone else will always try to ruin it.

What is it about our homosapien natures that manifests itself in such a negative way?

[JEarle]

Tonny N,
  You make a good point about classic courses being a classroom for Golf architecture.  There are also courses that have become museums of architecture. It takes years of understanding and evolution for a course to become museum quality. The hardest part is seeing the great works of architecture "restored / renovated" to the point were they are no longer accepted as worthy works of art.

    Could you elaborate on your comment " ... the course is "constructed".(while still utilizing features that the site offered.)"

[Tommy Naccarato]

JEarle,
It is to my understanding that Riviera, during its construction and design moved an amount of earth. More specifically, that I know of, at holes 5 & 18. that was the extent of my comment, and to also let you know that I'm not the source or authority on this. I leave that up to the mooks that have attempted to teach me things in the field.

Yes, Classic Golf Courses should be classrooms for the masses, not unlike the university's around the world. They each have their own character and way of teaching the inhabitants of this spaceship called earth the language of golf architecture. How sad that you have people that don't know how to speak this language interpreting it.