I was extremely fortunate to play in the George C. Thomas tournament at LACC last week. As a side note, here are the changes I noticed in advance of the US Open:
1. Fairway narrowed on both sides.
6. Rough brought in short-right of green.
8. Layup area narrowed dramatically.
10. Rough grown over fairway bunkers—can't blast long-right towards 16 fairway.
12. Fairway narrowed significantly.
13. Fairway
widened 10-12 yards on left side. There was only about 15 yards of fairway where the ball would stay up on top—fine if the left rough is no big deal, but not fair with US Open rough there. Now there is 25 yards of fairway the ball will actually stay in (and another 25 it won't).
14. Fairway narrowed significantly on left side. This will be a difficult tee shot to get in the fairway.
16. Modest narrowing but more having to do with #10.
18. Left ~20 yards of fairway converted to rough. Hole now plays out to the right as a big dogleg left, an awkward tee shot. Rough also grown farther towards green on left side so players can't drive past it.
More relevant to this thread, I go back and forth on certain holes at LACC vs. Riviera; for me, Riviera usually comes out about 1 up, ±1 hole depending on the day. But LACC captures my imagination more and resides in my top 3 courses I've played. I think there are two reasons for that. One is that I've always had a strong affinity for holes that play very differently depending on the hole location. LACC has more of those simply because its greens are generally larger, and although both courses have some interesting green shapes, LACC has a few more (which means the target areas are still small; also, I say this having played LACC with tournament hole locations and Riviera with daily play ones).
Second, although both courses are beautiful, LACC is clearly more visually stunning than Riviera. I think it's just a reality that we play a very visual sport. The restoration at LACC made the course better in many ways, but visually was one of them. For example, the shot required on the 4th hole didn't really change when it went from this:
To this:
...but I know which one gets me more excited. And 8 changed a little, but given these two photos from basically the same spot:
vs.
...there's no question that the hole got way cooler, even if the shots required are basically the same. So when Tommy Naccarato creates images of #6 at Riviera showing now:
vs. after a proposed renovation:
...I think my experience of LACC is proof enough for me that this would make a huge difference in how a feel about Riviera as a whole vs. doing a hole-by-hole exercise. I love Riviera; it's in my top handful of courses I've played. But I have LACC ranked a step higher, possibly my #1, and I think the difference between the two courses is almost entirely visual and presentation rather than in the quality of the architecture.