[Lynn_Shackelford]

I have been there a couple of times and the changes are dramatic.  Just the tree removal alone changed things.  So far the members are excited, but now comes the big test, playing the course.  If playing it is as well received as looking at it, there will be a new debate in town.  Is LACC now better than Riviera?

In the past most would give Riviera a signficant edge.

As for Bel Air, there is no hope.  The membership at LACC is more aware of what is happening nationally and clearly understand the importance of a George Thomas heritage.  The membership at Bel Air is slanted a bit more toward Hollywood.  Bel Air today is a little like a movie set.  Looks great from appearance, but not much behind it.

[Jim Eder]

Lynn,

I am one who in the past considered Riviera superior. I love Riviera. Seeing the work at LACC already makes me question that belief/feeling and when I play it I have a feeling I will prefer LACC. Now, it is not a "sad loss" but a postive feeling that the "bar has been raised". There is nothing wrong with being second to perfection.

I will go out on a limb and say that I believe the vast majority of the membership will enjoy the play of the golf course at LACC as much as they will enjoy the look. The members understand the game and "get it" (as witnessed by doing the exact right thing with this work). I know they will enjoy it as much as many of us will. I would imagine Captain Thomas is very happy with this work.

It is sad but I agree on your assessment of Bel Air. Very sad. There is greatness there that could be recovered................... Maybe someday in our lifetimes though.

[Jon Spaulding]

I have been there a couple of times and the changes are dramatic.  Just the tree removal alone changed things.  So far the members are excited, but now comes the big test, playing the course.  If playing it is as well received as looking at it, there will be a new debate in town.  Is LACC now better than Riviera?

In the past most would give Riviera a signficant edge.

As for Bel Air, there is no hope.  The membership at LACC is more aware of what is happening nationally and clearly understand the importance of a George Thomas heritage.  The membership at Bel Air is slanted a bit more toward Hollywood.  Bel Air today is a little like a movie set.  Looks great from appearance, but not much behind it.

Love the last part regarding Bel Air.

I believe Riviera is a better golf course, in original state. In current state I would put it below LACC solely on moral grounds, I am not as intimate with it as you and others might be.

Adam, I agree with the"balls" comment. They are in short supply out in CA, especially at the state government level.

[Chip Gaskins]

was there one main person internally pushing to make these changes at LACC or was it a ground swell within the membership. 

its just interesting to understand what the best model/process is to restore these great old courses. 

is it the benevolent dictator (Pine Valley, Augusta) model
OR
is it the strong superintendent model (Oakmont, Olympic Club (w/ committee) model
OR
is it the one really strong/knowledgeable member (Cal Club) model
OR
is it the trial and error model (Congressional, Pinehurst #2) model
OR
what?

[Joel_Stewart]

was there one main person internally pushing to make these changes at LACC or was it a ground swell within the membership. 

its just interesting to understand what the best model/process is to restore these great old courses. 

is it the benevolent dictator (Pine Valley, Augusta) model
OR
is it the strong superintendent model (Oakmont, Olympic Club (w/ committee) model
OR
is it the one really strong/knowledgeable member (Cal Club) model
OR
is it the trial and error model (Congressional, Pinehurst #2) model
OR
what?

My guess is the really strong knowledgeable member who understood the error of their ways with Harbottle. 

[Mike Cirba]

It's sort of strange with all that's transpired over time, but years ago I played LACC, post-Harbottle, and was in a threesome of all Lefty's.

My playing partners that day were;

Dr. Geoffrey Childs

and

David Moriarty.


Ahh...the power of GCA in those early days was something to behold.   

May we all learn to get along better in the future, because we all have way more in common than those things that separate us.

[rjsimper]

8 looks great. Got any more? Reachable now, or still require 3 shots from different angles?

Any pics of the tee shot on 6?

[David Stamm]

I have been there a couple of times and the changes are dramatic.  Just the tree removal alone changed things.  So far the members are excited, but now comes the big test, playing the course.  If playing it is as well received as looking at it, there will be a new debate in town.  Is LACC now better than Riviera?

In the past most would give Riviera a signficant edge.

As for Bel Air, there is no hope.  The membership at LACC is more aware of what is happening nationally and clearly understand the importance of a George Thomas heritage.  The membership at Bel Air is slanted a bit more toward Hollywood.  Bel Air today is a little like a movie set.  Looks great from appearance, but not much behind it.

Love the last part regarding Bel Air.

I believe Riviera is a better golf course, in original state. In current state I would put it below LACC solely on moral grounds, I am not as intimate with it as you and others might be.

Adam, I agree with the"balls" comment. They are in short supply out in CA, especially at the state government level.

Spot on Spaulds. Right now, LACC looks to be the better course. In their original state, well, who knows. They are both so good it's hard to tell, but the work done at Riviera lately has really hurt it's perception with the more discerning crowd.

[Mark Arata]

The fact that anyone would let the 3rd hole go from the renovation look to the Harbottle look in the first place sort of scares me.

The Troy McClure line was classic Jon, great playing with you last week. I want to be you if I grow up some day! 

[Tom_Doak]

The work looks excellent.  LACC was a tremendously interesting design to start with, and there was much to recover.

My only concern is with how scruffy and rugged some of the photos look.  I just wonder if the change won't be a culture shock to a membership which has been used to a well-coiffed course for the past 30-40 years, and whether that might outweigh the added interest to the design in some members' minds.  I hope not.

Also, one question:  the photo of "new #2 green" says that it is in the location of old #8 green.  Is that a restoration or a change?  I don't have my old club history book handy this weekend.

[Anthony Fowler]

I have never seen the course, so I don't have any strong opinions here.  However, I would love to hear why the restoration was important to begin with.  I think some of the before pictures look great along with the after pictures.  Aesthetically, I like both and I think there is a place for both.  Are the aesthetic changes simply an effort to return the course to its original appearance?  Are there particular strategic interests that were lost that this restoration has recovered?

What happened with the work that Harbottle did?  What did he do and why do you think it was so bad?  I have seen two courses where he has done renovation/restoration work and I think he did excellent work on both.     

[David Stamm]

   I want to be you if I grow up some day! 

Mark, Jon wants to be Jon when he grows up.

[Dan Herrmann]

Jon,
I'm lucky enough to play a Hanse design at my club.  I know his restoration work is very well though of by members at their clubs (Monroe and CCR in Rochester NY) too.

I know you'll love the end product.

[Jon Spaulding]

The work looks excellent.  LACC was a tremendously interesting design to start with, and there was much to recover.

My only concern is with how scruffy and rugged some of the photos look.  I just wonder if the change won't be a culture shock to a membership which has been used to a well-coiffed course for the past 30-40 years, and whether that might outweigh the added interest to the design in some members' minds.  I hope not.

Also, one question:  the photo of "new #2 green" says that it is in the location of old #8 green.  Is that a restoration or a change?  I don't have my old club history book handy this weekend.

Tom, the "new" #2 green is a restoration.

Original version of #2 played on the order of 460 yards, using the same corridor off the tee, but the player would hit back over the wash to the same area formerly known as #8 green. Some pretty major tree clearing was done on the left side of #2 fairway to accomodate the new hole.

Note that the club has left the Dick Wilson version of #2 in tact for those that prefer to play the hole as a par 5.

Here are a couple of photos of #8  and #2 greensites from the elevated area adjacent to #16 green.

Here's a photo looking from behind the green recently.



And another one, looking at the new 2nd green which is directly behind the restored 8th green:

[Jon Spaulding]

I have never seen the course, so I don't have any strong opinions here.  However, I would love to hear why the restoration was important to begin with.  I think some of the before pictures look great along with the after pictures.  Aesthetically, I like both and I think there is a place for both.  Are the aesthetic changes simply an effort to return the course to its original appearance?  Are there particular strategic interests that were lost that this restoration has recovered?

What happened with the work that Harbottle did?  What did he do and why do you think it was so bad?  I have seen two courses where he has done renovation/restoration work and I think he did excellent work on both.     

Many people liked the old course, I believe more will like the restored version. Probably the difference between the place being a Doak 7-8 or a Doak 9-10.

There are too many strategic things being restored to list out during the work week!

I think Harbottle's main issue is that he marketed things as being a restoration when they were not.

[Jon Spaulding]

Jon,
I'm lucky enough to play a Hanse design at my club.  I know his restoration work is very well though of by members at their clubs (Monroe and CCR in Rochester NY) too.

I know you'll love the end product.

Will definitely love the end product, even moreso as I am unlucky enough to play a Ted Robinson design regularly, and only get to visit LA a few times per year

[Adam Clayman]

Without playing the new version, it's impossible to tell just how great it will be.

What is interesting is how some felt it was that close to Riviera before this recent work.

Truthfully, It wasn't even close in my book. Now,,, should be a different story.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

The work looks excellent.  LACC was a tremendously interesting design to start with, and there was much to recover.

My only concern is with how scruffy and rugged some of the photos look.  I just wonder if the change won't be a culture shock to a membership which has been used to a well-coiffed course for the past 30-40 years, and whether that might outweigh the added interest to the design in some members' minds.  I hope not.

Also, one question:  the photo of "new #2 green" says that it is in the location of old #8 green.  Is that a restoration or a change?  I don't have my old club history book handy this weekend.

Tom, the "new" #2 green is a restoration.

Original version of #2 played on the order of 460 yards, using the same corridor off the tee, but the player would hit back over the wash to the same area formerly known as #8 green. Some pretty major tree clearing was done on the left side of #2 fairway to accomodate the new hole.

Note that the club has left the Dick Wilson version of #2 in tact for those that prefer to play the hole as a par 5.

Here are a couple of photos of #8  and #2 greensites from the elevated area adjacent to #16 green.

Here's a photo looking from behind the green recently.



And another one, looking at the new 2nd green which is directly behind the restored 8th green:

Jon –

It’s been a while since I’ve played LACC… I can picture where the new #2 is, but where is #8 green now?  Did its relocation make the hole shorter?  Longer? 

The 2nd photo… what green is that?  And from what angle? 

Thanks.

WW

[Tim Leahy]

Now when does this group start on the Griffith Park golf courses?

[Jon Spaulding]

Wayne, the 2nd photo is of #2 green.

#8 green moved down the fairway, shortening the hole by 30-40 yards, making it viable as a 2-shotter so long as one can hit a l-r tee shot and a r-l second

I neglected to get a photo of both greens in one shot, would estimate the distance between the rear of both greens at 20 yards or so.

[Jim Eder]

Jon,

So it seems like they moved the 8th green back to the original placement. What a wonderful hole!!!

I am a little confused on #2. Is it now the original routing or is it a bit different?

I saw a mention of the return of the "course within the course".  How is #7 now? Is the par 4 option there? Still think it is an amazing 3.

I can't wait to hear about 5, the different tees. And #6.

There is just so much................ looking forward to hearing more.

Thank you so much for all the info!!!  The course is special for all and especially those of us who think Thomas was a genius.

[Jon Spaulding]

Jon,

So it seems like they moved the 8th green back to the original placement. What a wonderful hole!!!

I am a little confused on #2. Is it now the original routing or is it a bit different?

I saw a mention of the return of the "course within the course".  How is #7 now? Is the par 4 option there? Still think it is an amazing 3.

I can't wait to hear about 5, the different tees. And #6.

There is just so much................ looking forward to hearing more.

Thank you so much for all the info!!!  The course is special for all and especially those of us who think Thomas was a genius.

#2 = original version, 460 yard par 4  = matches current setup.

#7 has a tee just above new 6th green, where it will play as a 320ish par 4, or a 240 yard par 3 as before.

[Jim Eder]

Jon,

Terrific, thank you. Sounds absolutely supreme.

[Sean Leary]

Jon,

So it seems like they moved the 8th green back to the original placement. What a wonderful hole!!!

I am a little confused on #2. Is it now the original routing or is it a bit different?

I saw a mention of the return of the "course within the course".  How is #7 now? Is the par 4 option there? Still think it is an amazing 3.

I can't wait to hear about 5, the different tees. And #6.

There is just so much................ looking forward to hearing more.

Thank you so much for all the info!!!  The course is special for all and especially those of us who think Thomas was a genius.

#2 = original version, 460 yard par 4  = matches current setup.

#7 has a tee just above new 6th green, where it will play as a 320ish par 4, or a 240 yard par 3 as before.

They must have taken down a shit ton of trees on 7 to make that new tee possible. I remember when you showed me where it was and there was a forest of trees in the way.

[Michael Dugger]

What happened with the work that Harbottle did?  What did he do and why do you think it was so bad?  I have seen two courses where he has done renovation/restoration work and I think he did excellent work on both.    

I think the answer to your question, Anthony, is Harbottle's work wasn't exactly bad.

It just wasn't so good either...

Color me someone who wants more half-par holes; someone who prefers a more scruffy looking "rough around the edges" course.

Cutting down trees and widening corridors is an improvement 99% of the time.  Why didn't Harbottle suggest such a thing?

In the end though....the "end game" to all this, so to speak, is if the architect did what the membership asked him to do, he didn't exactly fail.

On the other hand, in looking at the end product from an artistic standpoint.....or in looking at the end product from a "fun golf" standpoint.....this renovation looks like a home run.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()