Trees and Riviera's 8th

[Mike_Cirba]

Having recently played Riviera, I was perplexed by the 8th hole.  I had read "The Captain" a few years back, but my memory was faulty and I pulled it out again tonight because I was confused as to how the hole was originally designed to be played.

It's a split fairway, par four, which has recently been "restored" by the Fazio group, as the right hand fairway had been lost to flooding way back when.  In looking at the hole, I couldn't imagine why anyone would choose to go left, even after Fazio's people tried to tighten the right hand fairway with the creation of a bunker that had never before existed.  

Still, the real problem with going left is the tall tree line that has been left growing in the "wash" between the two fairways.  Clearly, they should go, and the wash should be left in a more ragged state, and options might once again abound.

However, the thing that has me perplexed is the overhead picture in "The Captain", of Riviera in 1932, a mere five years after opening.  In that picture, it is clear that trees have been planted (or were already growing) in the wash, and already appear pretty mature.  Geoff's drawing in the book of the 8th does not include trees, and the strategies sans foliage are readily apparent.

I guess my question is simply, does anyone know when those trees were planted, as I know the hole was rather famous and well-regarded during its heyday.  Right now, it is simply a rather mundane hole on a great golf course.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Just because you saw that trees had been planted on #8 way back when does not at all indicate that trees in that wash was the correct architectural thing to do.

I agree with you, trees there are a difficult thing to comprehend particularly the size and amount of trees that are there now.

When I walked the course very early one morning a year ago I stood on that back tee (not yet built but the spot apparent) and looked at the hole for about 30 minutes! With those trees it just doesn't make sense. I carefully counted a MINIMUM of 17 trees that would have to come out to make the left option even remotely funtional or tempting. I walked forward and then wondered how that could be right, then walked back to the tee, looked again and concluded that a minimum of 17-20 trees should come out to make the left option remotely playable.

I even wrote the amount of trees that needed to go on the scorecard with some other thoughts and notes of other holes and green dimensions.

I'm looking at the card now and underlined is 'a minimum of 17 trees need to go on #8!'

[Lynn Shackelford]

Please keep in mind two things.  Where the tees are presently located have nothing to do with the original hole.  The "plan" is to put tents on the left fairway for the 20?? Open, and thus everyone is supposed to play the right fairway.  There is no option at present.  Before Fazio, the tees were very close to the 7th green and presented a drive into a very tight fairway, which was proper for the length of the hole.
Secondly, while there was a "restoration" taking place, there is a great fear in our world of taking out trees.  If they did, even with the weird tee location, it might bring back the option into the hole.  It would then be better to go left if the hole was place short right.  Of course this is before the Fazio, USGA, management put in the false front.  I think this is enough for now.  I don't believe the original had trees in the middle, Thomas probably didn't plant them.

[TEPaul]

Lynn:

In the 20?? Open do you think it will be possible for Tiger to unload a 325yd 2 iron down the old left fairway option and get free relief out of the temporary immovable obstruction of some fat-cat's Chateaubriand??

I can just see the USGA/R&A/PGA Tour/manufacturer rules quadrennial now mulling over the fundamental decision making question: "Was Tiger's left heel touching that glazed potato or was it not?"

[Mike_Cirba]

Lynn,

I agree with you about the difficulty of removing mature trees, especially "at least 17" as Tom points out, but my question is more about why they seemed to be there since almost the hole's inception.  

The aerial photo of Riviera in Geoff's book from 1932 shows either existing trees or planted trees in the wash between the two fairways.  That led me to wonder how it ever played as designed, and whether George Thomas had anything to do with the planting.  I can't imagine that he would have sabotaged his own strategy, yet the trees look pretty mature at that early point.  Does anyone know when the "treeing" of Riviera took place, and who was responsible?

As you know, Geoff's drawing of the early hole doesn't show any trees in the wash.  I'm assuming that Thomas wouldn't have wanted them, yet their location and size in 1932 is certainly a mystery to me.  

[Ran Morrissett]

Mike,

The trees were always there and with the tee centrally located between the two fairways, they weren't a key feature of the hole.

Mistake #1 was moving the teeing area back and to the right for the sake of distance. Mistake #2 was then in leaving all the trees in the wash because in doing so, the dilemma  of "which way should I go?" was negated. They could have reduced mistake #1 by thinning the trees but this wasn't done.

Mistakes #3-5 include not restoring the original bunkering placement, not following the green configuration, and not creating a green with any semblance of interior movement consistent with the other 17 greens (or Thomas's work in general).

I don't know who drove the tee placement but nothing went right after that decision was made.

Cheers,

[Mike_Cirba]

Ran,

Duh!  Of course, you're right and I absolutely missed it, while being so focused on the trees! (another reason for their removal ) Thanks for pointing out my error.

In fact, as drawn by Geoff in "The Captain", the original tee was located within the wash!, and about equidistant between the two fairways.  

The trees growing in the wash would have only penalized the drive that "split the difference", and either fairway might have been an attractive option from that tee area, depending on aggression and conditions of the day.  

With the tee now tucked way to the right, back in the corner, anybody going left has done so by grievous error.  I agree with the rest of your assessment of the "mistakes", but the thing that really jarred me is that hideous looking bunker on the right side.  Egads...what a monstrosity.  

[ChipOat]

Hey - you guys are discussing stupid trees that obstruct the playability of a hole from the fairway or tee box!

I hope they all die - these don't sound like they will, though.

[Mike_Cirba]

chipoat;

I'm still somewhat amazed that these trees either already existed or were planted before 1932.  

I guess I'm still interested if anyone knows whether George Thomas was involved in the tree plantings at Riviera.

In either case, they are a mistake, but given that the "wash" is now so well manicured (I can't imagine how cool the course would be if the wash were left in a rugged, ragged state), those trees now provide the only penalty for going the "center" route on the split fairway.  

[Geoff Shackelford]

Mike,
Ran pretty much summed it up, the trees and bushes were planted very early on, and appear to be eucalyptus, so someone knew they would grow up. The current tee placement has thrown off any chance of anyone understanding options or taking a chance with them, so it's not the fault of the trees that length was emphasized over character. But as my dad pointed out, the club is claiming this anti-option-option-hole was intentional to make people want to go right, so that there would be justification for putting corporate tents down the left side (yes, that's the best they could come up with, and it is in writing in the Fazio plan).

2000 trees were planted over the first two years of Riviera's existance according to the definitive article on the course construction (an informative piece by the club's first manager which will be posted in June here on GCA). We can only assume that Thomas and/or Bell were involved in this as they were making adjustments to the course in that two year window. Personally, I think it would be a huge mistake to remove the trees separating #8's fairways, as the two-option tee shot should be considered with the tee located more thoughtfully to provoke some incentive to take a certain route depending on the players mood, or more importantly, the days hole location (this latter component would require undoing the shallow USGA suggested enlargement that took place on the front and back sides of the green). In fact, the trees may help create options and enhance the interest, even with a rugged, sandy wash (a look that will never happen under the current ownership).

Also it would be a huge mistake to simply remove the trees there and on 13 without any long term plan for how this will look in the context of the rest of the course, or how hazards will be treated to fit in on what has become a course with too much turf. The Fazio's group suggestoin to cut down these trees, without a carefully conceived plan to return the original look of the hazards on #7/#8/#13 and elsewhere on the course ignored common sense, and this is an area that they traditionally emphasize: aesthetics.
Geoff

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoff,

Thanks for your insight.

I understand the impracticalities of suggesting these changes to the present ownership, but speaking on a somewhat theoretical, if historical level, I agree that the trees on 7, 8, & 13 should only come down if the wash was once again a hazard, both visually and from a playing standpoint.  

A fairly well manicured, grassy depression (which the wash presently is) would hardly generate fear in anyone's eyes, and the key to any successful strategy is that there is real risk and suitable punishment for misplayed or ill-conceived shots.  Without the wash playing that role, the trees are certainly the only available option at present.