[Tony Ristola]

...or more mysterious hole without the 2 large fairway bunkers in the center and right? It would be less beautiful, but would it be more interesting without them?

[Tom_Doak]

Tony:

I think those two big bunkers lead your eye out to the right visually, so they're a good thing.  They have no real strategic purpose, but without them the hole would look awfully empty, and I'm willing to bet it probably wouldn't be as revered.

[Tony Ristola]

I agree about their beauty, but I don't know how often a golfer is going to be lead astray by those bunkers. If anything they tell the player to smack it left, precisely the best line. They also give someone a feature, or part of it to work off of. Like a tree at the corner of a dogleg. Nice eye candy though.

[Jeff Doerr]

Tony,

Those bunkers really dictate a false line of charm leading straight to the front edge of the green.

The view from the tee makes it very obvious if someone can post that.

[Jim Johnson]

From Ran's writeup on Riviera.....



JJ

[Tom_Doak]

Tony:

I think the bunkers lead you to play right of where you should in a very subtle way.  The left extension of the bunker makes a carry to the A spot in the fairway a bit tougher, and the lip there is high enough that you can't really see any fairway over the bunker.  Meanwhile, even a 15-handicap gets up there and feels like he can carry the bunkers to the right of center, so he does, and he's out of position.

[Bob_Huntley]

Tony,

There is only one sensible way to play the hole. Hit it left and wedge it in. Anything else is ego taking over. I played the hole for three or four years some three or four times a week and never felt that there was a better way to  stay even with par.

Bob

[Tony Ristola]

Bob,

I agree. There really is only one play, and that is left. With no fairway bunkers, guys might get a little lazy.

Perhaps part of the original scheme was better. Skip the right hand bunker and keep the one behind the green.

I've seen versions of this at Rustic and Cuscowilla. Riviera's 10th might be tougher, but the others just may be more fun.

[TEPaul]

In a sense the 12th at Rustic Canyon was a take-off on Riviera's 10th but the decision was made to put no bunkers on a really big and wide fairway and let the golfer figure out his own ideal position for the drive in relation to the pin. Those discussing it realized there'd be a real risk it would be misunderstood and thought to be bland or under-designed.

[Jim Nugent]

There is only one sensible way to play the hole. Hit it left and wedge it in. Anything else is ego taking over. I played the hole for three or four years some three or four times a week and never felt that there was a better way to  stay even with par.

In this case, why is the hole considered so great?  Sounds like zero strategy -- the hole dictates one way and one way only to play it.  

[Edward Coombes]

To me the left bunker dares the shorter hitter, not game or able to reach the green to come hither for the perfect line but be precise.
Otherwise go for it or lay up right for a less than perfect line of approach.
I figure there's a hint of heroics involved even with the layup left.

[TEPaul]

"In this case, why is the hole considered so great?  Sounds like zero strategy -- the hole dictates one way and one way only to play it."

That is not the case with that hole. If you analyze how particularly the Tour pros have used very different strategies over the years it just proves this hole is not only loaded with optional strategies but that most of them are in almost a perfect form of balance or equilibrium.  

In the 1998 LA Open when I saw Sunday's final group of Woods, Love and Tryba, who were all in contention with one another to win, play the hole strategically completely different from one another it just reconfirmed why this hole is great and strategically great. It's not often you see Tour pros play any hole that strategically different from one another.

[tlavin]

The 10th at Riv is a hole that is best left alone, but what about cutting down some of those trees in between the bunkers?

[Tony Ristola]

I'm not advocating changing it, and it'd be utterly laughable to have a serious discussion about doing it.  This is just something to smash around a bit.

The left bunker is the strategic bunker. I remember Mike Weir laying up right to the edge when he beat Howell III in the playoff. His tee shot was almost too good.

TEPaul: Loaded with strategies? I don't think there are that many. And the approach is limited with options too. Hit it left to your desire distance, gun for the front of the green, or blast it through the fairway into the rough. That's three. I'd seen a few guys gun for the front in the persimmon days with Love III and Sindelar being the only two that got it there.

That's why I think Cuscowilla and Rustic are more fun. They both have severe greens, meaning the target isn't the most receptive, but you can bump-and-run it up, putt it up, or pitch it on (so long as the conditions are firm and fast)...from scores of angles. At Riviera it's BE LEFT! PITCH IT ON. And if you're not left you've still got the same ploy...a pitch shot approach.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony,

To the broad spectrum of golfers who play the hole, those bunkers present a visually intimidating image.

You can't view architecture in the sole context of the better player, viewing it in the context of the broad spectrum, the reality of the great majority of those who actually encounter and play the hole is more appropriate.

Those bunkers send a tactical signal that influences play.
That alone justifies their existance.

[Tony Ristola]

Pat,
They do have an influence if you think the line to the hole is to go directly to the flag. Even so, they're not out there that far. They had an effect 60 years ago but less so today, even with average Joe's or less than average Joe's. They may be fun to hurdle for a few guys that bunt it, and hit mid-irons into the green. Still, good, bad or mediocre, there is but one line. Be Left Lad. For anyone with half an interest of scoring well on the hole, it being of the length manageable by virtually all classes of male golfers, the "tactical influence" of those bunkers lasts up to the precise moment they understand the line is left. There is little mystery to the hole. A couple rounds will have the most strategically challenged golfer thinking, hey, that green is really thin and the best place is left.

Now the aesthetics, nobody will argue with their beauty.

Back to the original question, I'm simply asking, would the hole be more interesting, without them?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony,

Your response reinforces my opinion that unregulated distance has harmed many great holes and golf courses.

That's why I favor a rollback as opposed to buying more real estate...... if it's available.

[Doug Siebert]

Tony,

There is only one sensible way to play the hole. Hit it left and wedge it in. Anything else is ego taking over. I played the hole for three or four years some three or four times a week and never felt that there was a better way to  stay even with par.

Bob

Bob,

Doesn't that depend you not being able to drive the green?  Now you may feel that even if you could drive the green it wouldn't be worth it, but while I certainly put a lot of weight to your words because you played it so many times, I think your words would carry even more weight if you had tried driving it for one year, a fairway wood just short another, and a iron left to ideal wedge range in the third.

I've only seen it on TV and pictures, so if you were Patrick I wouldn't even bother replying because I know what his response to me would be in thise case  I can only compare it to somewhat similar holes I've played (driveable par 4 with a very narrow green)  I've found through experience that I do better just trying to drive the damn thing.  Even though I rarely achieve the correct combination of accuracy and solid hit without being TOO solid that allows the ball to end up on the green, its a lot easier shot for me playing a lob wedge or sand shot from somewhere in the vicinity of the green versus the 3/4 SW.

I say 3/4 SW because if you are aiming left and playing to a spot for the "ideal" distance into this green, you need to hit that iron layup the correct distance AND correct line.  So either you plan the shot such that if you hit it perfectly you have a full SW and leave yourself beyond full SW range if you miss left or short (I'm a hooker, so going further left than I'm aiming is the odds on favorite)  Or I play for the perfect shot to leave me a 3/4 SW knowing that if I yank it or chunk it I'll just move from 3/4 to full SW range.

And I agree with Patrick's post about the unregulated distance.  Before the big drivers and Pro V1 I really doubt I'd try driver here because it wouldn't take much of a heel shot to land it in that bunker short left and that isn't a green I'd like to try to play at with a 50 yard bunker shot!

[Matt_Cohn]

[Tony Ristola]

I've played the hole a bit more than a half dozen times 13 years ago, and watched scores of guys attack it. There really isn't much mysterious about the hole. It's a demanding, beautiful, mono-strategic short par-4.

Pat,
I firmly believe the USGA and R&A have shirked their duties. I'd been up and down this topic a few years ago here (vs. TEPaul), then wrote an article for Paul Daley's Golf Architecture Vol. II on this specific subject. I don't know what the governing bodies are waiting for. They're ruling bodies, their job is to look out for the game, and run some tournaments, make a confusing handicap system, etc. They do half the job OK. The other half, makes me wonder what they don't understand because solving the problem is not that difficult.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()