I don't know about you, Bunky, but I had a terrific time watching the back nine and the playoff at Riviera yesterday.  It was fun listening to Nantz and Faldo fairly gush about the design of the golf course, particularly the gem of a short 4, Number 10.  That hole almost figured prominently in the win, when Mickelson snatched birdie from a possibly difficult par during regulation.  Then, during the playoff, it looked like Mickelson had hit a perfect tee shot, leaving only a short lob (nothing for Phil, right?) and Howell had to hit a shot off the concrete cart path.  Somehow, they both made par and the playoff continued.  It seems to me that Riviera is one of the very few tour stops where architecture is regularly discussed.  We may hear it when the USGA brings the open to classic layouts, but the Warwick Hills of the world tend to outnumber the Rivs during most of the season.  Fun stuff.

Jeff Lewis could probably get the skinny for us, but I'm guessing that the club may be suffering from restoration fatigue.  They made a big push for the Open a few years back and unfortunately they lost out to Torrey (aargh), but if I were a member at the Riv, I'd probably be loathe to tear up the hole again.  I do agree it's a bit of an abomination...

I thought it was wonderful to see a course in that kind of firm and fast condition, particularly the greens and the LZs. I would've liked to see some of the approaches bounce and rollout a bit more as it seemed a number of those players were expecting them to and were actually playing for that.

I call that kind of overall set up the IMM and Riviera had it as good as I've seen and it just makes great architecture so much more interesting and interesting to watch. In other words, the aerial and bounce and roll options were very well "Balanced" at Riviera this week.

I sort of hate to mention it on this board but in my opinion, the greens at Riviera proved this week how strategic they can be with a pretty high green speed.

TEP:

I too was struck by how the ball rolled out on tee shots but every single approach shot which hit short of the green seemed to stop dead. This phenomena could not be only dur to iron approaches descending at a steeper angle- I don't recall seeing even one approach shot hit short and bounce upm whereas drives seemed to be bouncing and rolling 40-50 yards.

I have not played Riviera. Are all the greens elevated in front?

Does anyone think the course was maintained in order to cause this effect- i.e., the approaches were intentionally softened?

  I believe the recovered green space on #9 played an important part in the outcome. It looked like Phil was on the expanded area for his third shot which he chose to chip since he could not putt it near the hole. After he chunked it he still was on the expanded area and left his putt quite a bit left.

I also enjoyed all the attention paid to No. 10 during the telecast as it really served to show in a dramatic way how very important short par 4's can be.  Although you would be surprised how many owners of new courses just don't get that and only fixate on the total yardage of the course.  So, it is good to be able to point to the experiences on No. 10 yesterday for just those type of owners and developers.

But, as a question to the better players out there, why is it that ALL of the players in the final groups chose to go for it and ALL of them wound up playing delicate and difficult pitch and chip shots from clumpy kikuyu rough?

When you see over and over how truly superb the short games are of the elite players, wouldn't they have a much better opportunity to spin one in close for a birdie putt from the fairway???  What goes through the head of very low handicap players, and pros, that leads them to just go for the gusto while KNOWING that their chances of pulling off the miracle shot into a tiny target from 300 yards away is so slim?

The CBS shot diagram showed that plenty of players earlier in the day did lay up to give themselves a full 80 yard pitch into the green.  It would seem to be reversed to me: wouldn't the guys teeing off earlier have nothing to lose at all and just give it a rip, while the ones at day's end are playing for the trophy and should be playing intelligently for birdie, instead of hard-working par from wettish clumpy rough?

Jim Sweeney -

Many of the greens do have this sneaky little rise of about 3 to 5 feet. If a ball hits into the rise, the ball will stop dead in its tracks. If the ball hits short of the rise with a lower trajectory, the ball will advance onto the green. The extremes of this are certainly heightened by the Kikuyu grass, but they are less extreme in non-tournament conditions.

I loved seeing how critical placement of the approach shot was this week. I played out there this morning in the rain, and the course was probably the best I've ever seen it. And it was hugely difficult, but completely fair. Very fast fairways, firm and fast greens. The surrounds did not appear to be specifically softer or different than the fairways, I think we were just witnessing the blend of Thomas' little perception test to the player and the Kikuyu. Congrats to Matt Morton the GCS, his staff and his volunteers from around the country.

P.S. Kavanaugh played the 10th beautifully again and made all the putts that Phil missed on the back side.

But, as a question to the better players out there, why is it that ALL of the players in the final groups chose to go for it and ALL of them wound up playing delicate and difficult pitch and chip shots from clumpy kikuyu rough?

When you see over and over how truly superb the short games are of the elite players, wouldn't they have a much better opportunity to spin one in close for a birdie putt from the fairway???  What goes through the head of very low handicap players, and pros, that leads them to just go for the gusto while KNOWING that their chances of pulling off the miracle shot into a tiny target from 300 yards away is so slim?

The CBS shot diagram showed that plenty of players earlier in the day did lay up to give themselves a full 80 yard pitch into the green.  It would seem to be reversed to me: wouldn't the guys teeing off earlier have nothing to lose at all and just give it a rip, while the ones at day's end are playing for the trophy and should be playing intelligently for birdie, instead of hard-working par from wettish clumpy rough?

Great questions. I can't make much sense of their choices.

More evidence for Pete Dye's theory that if you can make the pro's think, you've got 'em.

I would have liked to have seen how Tiger would play the 10th with a f&f green. After Hoylake, his playing strategies deserve great deference.

Bob