That is why Riviera could hold a US Open!

[Michael Christensen]

Mickelson, PW from 143...hits it middle of the green, it hits and runs off the green

These greens are great this week.....as someone said earlier, the sound of a hard green is hard to beat!

What prevents Riviera from holding an Open again?  Room for crowds?  Neighborhood concerns?  The course could certainly hold up.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Michael,

It does seem that the greens are US Open-like in behavior.  But I wonder if the USGA's tedious--IMO--insistence on narrow fairways and high rough would take away some of the strategic interest that Riviera has.  

[Tom_Doak]

I think the two primary reasons that Riviera is not a primary candidate to host the US Open are:

1.  The USGA doesn't trust kikuyu grass, and
2.  The USGA is not keen on hosting the Open at privately-owned courses, and especially not at a course owned by a Japanese investor.

The course design has always been Open-worthy, even without some of the tees they've added in recent years ... and make no mistake, those changes have been made because the owners would dearly love to host the US Open.

[Martin Del Vecchio]

I would love to see a US Open at Riviera.  I find it more compelling when the Open is played at a course that I am familiar with from TV.

And I don't think that the USGA gives a hoot about how their narrow fairways would remove options, strategy, etc.  The US Open is their cash cow, and it's far more important to them that there be enough space for merchandise tents, corporate tents, merchandise tents, private food tents, and merchandise tents.

[Michael Christensen]

I agree on the Japanese investor angle.....but, it could be a Pinehurst type setup....less rough, faaaaast and firm and the greens not holding anything.  

I suppose 1, 11 or 17 would have to be converted to a par-4...

Maybe there is no room for the hospitality ala Torrey Pines...I have played there twice, but over 10 years ago so I dont remember the roominess (those Hollywood Nights made the rounds a little foggy! )

[wsmorrison]

"The US Open is their cash cow, and it's far more important to them that there be enough space for merchandise tents, corporate tents, merchandise tents, private food tents, and merchandise tents."

There's nothing wrong with a cash cow, I could use one.  While the USGA does care about all the things you mention, they are having the 2013 Open at Merion and that demonstrates their willingness to do something a bit more in line with the sensibilities we express on this website.  They are not the evil empire they are often made out to be.  The golf architecture archive and research initiative is another example of them doing the right thing.  They are easy to bash at times, but please, let us be equally quick to praise them when it is deserved.

[Jim Sweeney]

Pebble is Privately owned, so is Pinehurst. I can't say for sure, but I believe that at least two Opens were held at Pebble while it was under Japanese ownership.

Those may be issues, Tom, but unless you know for sure, it's just conjecture.

There are so many things that go into making a decision on an Open site that it is impossible to pick out issue and sya that it is the deal maker/breaker. In addition to all the variables already mentioned, certainly traffic is an issue, getting players and spectators to/from the course. That's been a big topic of discussion on the telecast of the LA Open this year.

There is also summer weather- 3rd week of June in downtown LA? What's it like? Yes, I know the Open was held there many years ago, but the USGA now has so many sites that want the Open, they have the luxury (and the right) to choose the sites that best fit all needs for a sucessful championship.

I certainly don't have the answers, but just because Riviera could be a quality site doesn't mean it should host the US Open.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

You are right about the weather being something of a factor -- they could get coastal fog up the valley in June.

[Michael Robin]

The rumors as to why the USGA keeps passing on having a SoCal US Open at Riviera are as Tom outlined. Also, the lack of tent space has been mentioned as a concern.

The traffic issues this year are primarily due to construction just up Sunset from the club, although it has become a nightmare trying to get around the Westside in the last 3 years.

The weather in June in the Palisades is overcast known as "June Gloom", but not necessarily foggy. Temp is around 68 and there is a good dose of the prevailing wind off the ocean starting at about 10:00am. The course tends to be perfect in June. The Poa flowering is over and the kikuyu rough is not as out of control as it gets in July when it gets hot. It's sort of like the Monterey Peninsula in June. It would be such a great Open spot. Maybe some day.

[Steve Lapper]

Keep a few other, very important, things in mind...

Riviera, unlike Merion, has no immediate or adjacent open fields (perhaps the Will Rogers State Park or a handful of very small middle school grounds...both several MILES away) with which to support the park& bus, and corporate tent cities the USGA has become so dependent on. Merion will still have enough of both, albeit scaled-back with mandatory reduced attendance #'s. It's important to note that there is also no national championship history associated with RCC, only a rich PGA past. Thus Wayne's argument that their "outside-the box" award to Merion argument doesn't apply here. *

Tom Doak's identification of the USGA's fears are 100% correct, along with the inherent possibility of coastal fog. The summer is also the peak season for the kikuyu. The mistrust of foreign ownership strongly poses a very significant problem as well. Historically, the USGA exhibits a vise-like grip over everything over everything related to hosting it's national championship from preparation through execution. Frankly, they probably have to to pull off the event at today's magnitude. They like to go where they have a historic basis for trust with the club's governing bodies and membership. So much so, that they are likely to continue to shun many new private venues in favor of the existing rota. Relying on a foreign owner, with possible competing agendas would likely be the blue blood's worst fear.

Those public venues added/favored in the last few decades serve both as the organization's external & internal image balancers as well as testament to David Fay's desire to appear to democratize the nation's championship.

If LACC were to change their mind (not much chance anytime soon), they'd likely be added to the rota in a heartbeat. The course, facility, location, and ingress/egress are naturals for such an event.

Michael Robin,

While the present ditch construction near Mandeville Canyon severely impairs Sunset traffic now, isn't a fact that every Nissan Open over the last 5yrs has resulted in nightmarish traffic woes? That road is the central commutation artery for LA's west side wealthy & powerful, and unfortunately, unlike LACC, none of the other major artery's or highways are close enough nearby. From a disaster planning perspective alone, the Open could never be held in such a poorly egressed site as RCC.


*The USGA is not any evil empire, and while their role as depository and guardian of artifacts and historical material is indisputable, they hardly embody, nor reflect anything exemplary when it comes to corporate governance or serving the majority of the sport's participants "For the Good of the Game."  

[wsmorrison]

The Golf Architecture Archive and Research Center is not meant to be merely a depository of artifacts. If you believe that to be so, there is more to consider.

Your dismissals of the efforts of the USGA often includes the "blue blood" label as well as the poor corporate governance and a lack of doing things for the good of the game.  I don't think the color of blood is an issue nor do I believe they've done everything right.  But tearing them down, what would you have stand in their place?  

You and others like you disparage the USGA but offer nothing constructive in return.  Remove the governing body and replace it with what?  In Robert Bolt's excellent "A Man For All Seasons,"  Thomas More was discussing the law with his son-in-law to be,William Roper,

"And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?"  

Rather than disparaging the USGA with generalities as many often do, what specifics are you upset with?  And just so it is not common griping, what would you do better?

[Steve Lapper]

 Sorry to take this OT, but since you desire a reply, I'll gladly supply one.

 Yes, the Archive and Research Center is more than just a depository of artifacts, but is it open to all that seek to access it, for any reasonable purpose? I don't know that it is or isn't, but I think it certainly should be. If it is, great and I apologize accordingly.

 As for dismissals of of the USGA's efforts, the use of the term "blue bloods," and issues of corporate governance, let's examine the underlying truths. I don't dismiss everything the USGA does.

 For the record, they do a relatively decent job of administering to the many national championships, archiving golf-related material, trying to guard the rules of the game and performing the engineering of the game's devices and turfgrasses. I won't even judge their role in helping guide the game through it's struggle with modern and continually evolving techonolical upheaval.

 After that, I maintain they do little if anything to help widen the appeal of the game, protect public venues for the perpetuation of the game, aid access to  minority and indigent participation. and  responsibly spread the fruits of their profits across a broad and non-elitist platform. Those profits, directly derived from US Open tickets and other fund-raising efforts, are instead going to private air charters, extensive entertaining and a good deal of private club support. Perhaps it is just my humble opinion, but I'm not sure any of those activities fit their mission statement.

  While the term "blue bloods" might not feel comfortable on the main-line of Philadelphia, it's pure folly to suggest that it is being used to strictly refer to the "color of one's blood." We both know  it was coined long ago by others and often used to (accurately) describe the predominant make-up of the USGA Executive Committee over the last the organization's history. This group is the only group that creates and dictates policy and direction on behalf of the USGA. Members are nominated and voted on, in secret, by a very very select few people, mostly past USGA presidents and EC members, thus effectively and surely protecting the self-perpetuation of organizational policy and direction. Always, the super-majority of the EC is derived from staunchly-private and maybe even elitist clubs, many with exclusionary policies. Little innovative or imaginative is likely to come from such stuffy environs.

 Please tell me how, in 2007, a public organization with a very public mandate that secretively renews such a board can or should be defended as being "good for the game?"

 Rightfully, you ask me what would I do differently, or better? For starters, as I have stated here before, I'd open up the USGA Executive Committee to public scrutiny and an entirely different composition. Mine would have no worse than an equal weighting of Public and Private golf representatives, a smattering of USGA employee seats (like now) and some outside, truly independent directors. No more streams of Presidents and board majorities from ANGC, Seminole, Cypress, SFGC, etc....

I'd create a mandate to earmark and spend some "meaningful share"..(think 20-25%" % of USGA revenues) to the support, and occasional creation, of public and accessible golf facilities throughout the US. I'd tell my membership that some amount of every dollar was going back to the game for education, assistance and inclusion of our nation's sporting youth (i.e larger and less political grants in both urban and rural  areas for teaching and playing facilities). Sponsorship of golf clinics and sportsmanship seminars wouldn't hurt either. Such efforts might not be everyone else's vision, but they seem eminently wiser applications of funds than sponsorship of NetJets (for EC members only!), fancy dinners, and greens fees at clubs nearby tournaments for the EC and staff. Do you disagree?

I'd gladly go into greater detail and carry this debate forward at a later time, but for now my daughter's b-day party and celebration beckons. Until then, I think this no less than a fair defense to your accusations of disparagement and lack of thoughtful solution.