George Thomas, Welcome Home!--Riviera #7

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Prior to the flood in 1939, the tee shot at hole number seven was one of the hardest on the golf course, because of the fairway bunker that ran down the left side. The bunker that washed away in the flood has been added back. From the back tee, the bunker now starts at 255 yards off the tee and traverses all the way to 310 yards.--Tom Marzolf

[jonathon kaye]

so what is the problem? looks pretty good to me? what are you trying to say??

[George C. Thomas, Jr.]

Mr. Kaye:

From an aestetic perspective, I believe that the esteemed Mr. Naccarato is trying to say that these new bunkers don't look like any bunker that I built at Riviera, either as originally constructed or as they have evolved over the years.  On this point I wholeheartedly agree.  If these new bunkers look good to you, I respect (while disagreeing with) your opinion but would suggest that bunkers like this should be confined to courses that Mr. Fazio is building from scratch if that is the style of bunker that he admires.  But if they in fact look out of place at Riviera, then wouldn't you agree that they should not have been built there?

The second point that Mr. Naccarato's post addresses is that the left fairway bunker on #7 was not in fact washed away in the 1939 flood.  The 1939 flood washed away the right hand portion of the fairway to a great enough extent that they decided at that time to remove the left fairway bunker to allow for a fair tee shot.  So when Mr. Fazio's organization built this bunker, one should ask if they "restored" the right hand portion of the fairway that was, in fact, washed away by the 1939.  Also, do you think for even a moment that I built that bunker 255-310 yards out?

So in the end, if you are going to RENOVATE my masterful work at Riviera, at least have the guts to say that's what you are doing.  But to publicize and promote that work as a RESTORATION of my work or even what my vision would have been if I were alive today is terribly insulting and wrong.

Yours truly,
George

[Brian Phillips]

Jonathon,

I am sorry but I think it looks crap..

It look like a bunch of fish or whales decided to beach up on the side of the bunker and lay some eggs or something.

From where the first picture is taken the lip on this side of the bunker looks too straight edged.  The whole thing is awful.

What is the point of it?  Why build such a large bunker when maybe two would do.  It is bad design in my opinion.

If you are going to put in a bunker of that size then it should more like a waste bunker that has a rougher feel and look to it.  To me the Riviera doesn't have a rough feel to it so I would have only put a small cluster of bunkers max 3.

It shouldn't need more.  

This picture to me shows that the architect's ego has taken over the site rather than the site influence what the architect should adapt in his restoration.

It's a joke and very sad.  I am glad that Fazio people don't work in Europe yet.

How straight edged does that bunker look from the tee?  Come on....

And it's too symmetrical further up on the last picture...I could go on and on but it is awful IMHO..

Why such a big bunker...I don't get it...no imagination maybe?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Beautifully stated by Mr.Thomas. I went back took a look at the photo of this hole in 'The Captain' and this bunker looks nothing like the original and looks nothing like the current evolved version of Thomas's bunkers.

Jonathon
You must not be a fan of sensative and accurate restorations of great architectural works or possibly you're not fond of George Thomas's work - do you work for Tom Fazio?

[Jeff Mingay]

I've been reserving comment on this subject. But I must ask, if this were a respectful restoration, as claimed, you'd think Fazio and Marzolf would be utilizing Geoff Shackelford?

I mean, why wouldn't you consult a guy who's researched and written a comprehensive book on Geo. Thomas and Riviera CC, who's also a noted researcher and writer of the history of golf course architecture -- again, with a specialty in Geo. Thomas. The answer: EGO.

As for the 7th, those trees down the left side should go too -- if indeed this is a restoration. The photo on page 158 of "The Captain" clearly illustrates why. What an awesome view across the course, with the clubhouse sitting proud, high in the background.

And, Mr. Thomas,

Great point about the right side of the 7th fairway. It seems Tom Marzolf spends far too much time recording which clubs the pros are approaching every hole with, and not enough on the design history of these great old courses he claims to be restoring.

Just one man's opinion,

[Geoff Shackelford]

The killer for me is the disproportionate scale of the bunker compared to the rest of the course. Obnoxious is the only word that can describe the size and look. Though amateuristic and tacky have also been overheard in the gallery this week. You look at the bunker short of the green, and it's a big bunker that sits at a higher elevation than the new fairway bunker. Yet it looks tiny compared the new bunker and sits below the top edge of the fairway bunker!

What makes this one so bad is that the outline of the old bunker was there in the ground. It did not wash away, instead, it was filled in after the flood and probalby modified a bit after they had lost fairway and needed playing space. Stil, the bunkers location was evident, and it was even acknowledged that they found sand when creating this whale. But clearly in the new style of restoration, one must ignore such information and build something innovative.

Statistically, this hole is playing no different, and again, the reasons are pretty obvious to most, but clearly not to all.

[A_Clay_Man]

It appears to be an attempt to copy the waves Tillie made at SFGC. IMHO A failed attempt, due to the timid nature of the final product versus the real deal. Ayuh Dan?

I wonder what the members and the purists expect from owners who in all likelyhood have never had an original idea in their head and are just trying to keep up with Jonses... or Merions or Hooties?

[spdb1]

For those of us who have never seen Riviera, or seen historical photos, this exercise of posting picture after picture of new (restored ?) bunkers is fairly useless.

CAN SOMEONE HERE PLEASE POST AN OLD PICTURE OF THE RIV?

All the description of the old course and bunkering is great, but without a picture to compare to, how can I criticize this? Many here, are more than willing to decry this new bunker, without ever having seen the original, and that is really, really sad. And it is one of the things that absolutely infuriates me about this website.

Brian, how many times have you been to riviera, or seen pictures of the original bunker?

[GeoffreyChilds]

Jeff Mingay

excellent points- I'm sure the reasons Geoff wasn't consulted about a restoration at Riviera are very similar to the reasons George Bahto wasn't kept on and used for the "restoration" at Yale after he gave so much of his time and effort to convince them that true restoration was the way to go and backed it up with beautiful hole drawings that should have been used.

That bunker does look hideous but I too would love to see the old photos and an old aerial of Riviera posted here.

SPDB - those new bunkers look so different form the original ones that are still there I think its easy to criticize them.  There is no way that evolution, time, aging or anything else other then dynamite and starting over will ever make those new things look like the original Thomas bunkers. Its a shame and I feel for the members who love their course.

[Bob_Huntley]

As a former member of Riviera, playing the course regularly and walking the dogs every evening, I came to the conclusion that this was the perfect test of golf. I left the club in 1975 and always felt that Riviera could have hosted a US Open at any time, if they had just let the grass grow. The current follies are an outrage.How sad.

[George C. Thomas, Jr.]

spdb1

Does this webiste infuriate you because people speak the truth or, rather, because they are criticizing the Fazio organization?  Because having acknowledged that you have never played Riviera or even seen old pictures of it, how can you question those who have done both and don't think highly of this work.

If you are a serious student of golf course architecture and want to truly understand what some of the people on this "infuriating" website are talking about, then I would suggest that you get yourself a copy of "The Riviera Country Club, A definitive History" written by Geoff Shackelford.  And after reading that book, why don't you come back here to gca and tell everybody whether you are infuriated at this website or the work that is depicted in these photos being posted by Mr. Naccarato.

Yours truly,
George

[Brian Phillips]

spdb1,

I totally agree with you that yes some comments on this site are annoying especially when coming from people that have not visited a site or even know the history of design.

No I have not played Riviera nor have I seen many pictures of the old bunker.  I never mention anything about the old bunker,  all I mention is how crap the design of the bunker in the picture is.

My quote:

"If you are going to put in a bunker of that size then it should more like a waste bunker that has a rougher feel and look to it.  To me the Riviera doesn't have a rough feel to it so I would have only put a small cluster of bunkers max 3."

You don't have to see many pictures of Riviera to know that there aren't that many bunkers of this size or that sort of shape.

I never ever mentioned anything about the old bunker.  It's crap bunker wherever you put it even on the moon.  As I am a constructor first, I would be embarassed for the architect if he asked me to build a bunker like this.  In fact my shapers from Scotland would try to shape up the bunker differently first and hope that the architect agreed with them.

I cannot remember how many times my boys have looked at a drawing and thrown it away and shaped up something better and then the architect has agreed with them when he turned up a site visit.  Admitedly we have sometimes got it wrong and have lost some hours and money re doing it the way the architect wanted it!!

It takes a good architect to admit that his drawing was wrong!  I would guess that the architect in charge here was not on site any were near as enough as he should have been with the constructors.

You don't need to know what the old bunker looks like to give an opinion on the new bunker....I think it is crap..but as I have said before ...that is the beauty of this site it's just an opinion and architecture is subjective.

I have seen many pictures of Riviera and even gone to the lengths of begging my mate to record this weeks event on tv to study the course as I can't get any golf in this blasted country...

You made some fair comments though.  I respect you for that as there are many on this site that just jump on the wagon when there is some bashing going on.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mr. Thomas et al:

I have some sympathy for SPDB1's point of view.  Unless you have spent time at Riviera or own documentation of the course (such as Geoff's history), you just might not understand what is wrong with the work being done at Riviera.

Tommy's pictures are very good for those of us familiar with Riviera, but what about the man who isn't?  Can he really appreciate how bad the current work is?

It's a classic example of needing to focus the content of a presentation based on the knowledge of your audience.  Many people here are fairly well traveled.  Others, apparently including SPDB1, are not.


SPDB1:

If you have a serious interest in this topic, I would encourage you to pick up Geoff's history.  It will give you some insight into why people familiar with Riviera are so upset with what is going on.

While its true that Tommy might have presented more documentation to educate people unfamiliar with Riviera, I don't know if it is fair to be infuriated at this site.  Tommy is just one person, not the entire site.  I'd hate to discourage people like Tommy from sharing some of their pictures just because one might argue that he didn't fully document the entire issue concerning changes at Riviera.

[Brian Phillips]

spdb1,

I have tried to send you an e-mail but get it returned can you drop me a line on the site or by my e-mail?

Cheers Brian

[SPDB]

Perhaps I should clarify myself. Infuriated probably was too strong a word. Indeed, I probably wouldn't visit a site and post more than 250 times if it truly "infuriated" me.

What I was trying to convey is my disappointment with the mob mentality that takes over the discussion at times. And, I think some of those who engage in this type of browbeating, are, sometimes, the least qualified to do so.

I am sensitive to Geoff Shackleford's disappointment with what he considers a trashing of his course. But how can I (and others) look at some of tommy's pics and scream bloody murder if i have no frame of reference? For me to come on here and say that this bunker is a disaster, would be at once disingenuous and irresponsible. How am I to know that the original bunker didn't look exactly like this one? I am willing to take Geoff at his word given his involvement with and knowledge of the course. But far too many here are simply assuming that this bunker must be some bastardization of the original simply because Thomas designed the original, and Fazio, the newer one.

George C. Thomas Jr (or whatever your actual name is) - don't mistake what I'm saying as a defense of the renovation, or of Fazio.  I think i am taking a fairly balanced and reasoned approach to this.

Brian Phillips - I apologize. I didnt mean to try and make an example out of you. And I don't think that Riviera is a series of small bunkers. Witness the fairway bunker on 10, or the massive greenside bunker on "The Best Par 3 in America"  the 4th.  Or how about the Barranca (pre-Faz)

brian - you can instant message me through the site.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

SPBD
If you can not get your hands on the Riviera history, you should try reading 'The Captain' -- I'd suggest the book to any serious student of golf architecure.

[TEPaul]

If we're going to do some serious architectural analysis and comparative analysis then we should do just that and do it well too or we're going to leave ourselves open to some serious criticism.

I looked at the photo here and also the photo on p 158 of "The Captain" and frankly I see a difference between the 1930 bunker and the 2002 one but not a huge difference. It appears that Fazio's has much more sand showing and the far end (the long carry end) really does look very different in dimension and certainly has much more sand visibility at the far end.

I'm also looking at a drawing on the next page of hole #7 that appears historic but I can see it's by Geoff Shackelford. If you compare the bunker on that drawing using the yardage scale on that drawing to the one in the photo here (and as described by Marzolf as a length between 255-310yds) it would appear that the overall dimensions of the 1930 and 2002 bunker are about the same. As for the differences in carry, as Geoff said it sounds like they repositioned this new one or is it possible the longer carries have something to do with tee distance increase or extension?

But that's just analyzing this bunker from those two photos which appear to be taken from about the same place. When you compare the other photos up close of Fazio's bunker you can see that his bunker has much larger capes and whales tails than the 1930 bunker had (if it had any at all). The 1930 bunker appears to have grass pulled over the far edge more than Fazio's too. Thomas's looks "lower profiled' from the tee  and not half so evident from the tee as Fazio's.

As for the somewhat straight leading edge on both the 1930 and 2002 one, they actually look quite similar but once you get up near Fazio's you can see it really doesn't have a straight leading edge and the leading edge on the drawing doesn't appear straight either--it just appears that way from back on the tee at a golfer's eye level obviously on both 1930 and 2002.

As for the fairway that was washed away and how the fairway in 2002 appears above you can clearly see a vast difference comparing both photos! What was Fazio/Marzolf thinking about that fact or historic fact?

[Tim_Weiman]

SPDB:

You don't have to look at Tommy's pictures and scream bloody murder.  You don't have to say anything at all.

Name any famous classic course and I bet you will find that a very large percentage of the people who visit this site haven't actually seen it.

When you don't have all the information required to make an informed judgement, the best approach is just to ask questions.

Tom Paul's instinct is correct.  It would be far better to have a serious discussion about the differences between Thomas' work and Marzolf's work, than to engage in Fazio bashing or accuse people of Fazio bashing.

[Lynn Shackelford]

Tom Paul
You are right about the Marzolf bunkers (I don't think Fazio ever visited Riviera during the renovation) being more rounded than Thomas/Bell bunkers.  Looks a bit like a famous course in Philly no?  But I get a different size bunker on #7 at Riviera.  Marzolf admits to 55 yards in length for the fairway bunker (I think it is easily 65 yards), Geoff's drawings, if correct, are 35 yards in length in The Captain.  We will never know.  Superintendent Paul Ramina said they found the old bunker site in digging, but he didn't say they copied it.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean,

I find it pretty hilarious that you are holding someone else responsible to post you pictures when you can PURCHASE the book for yourself that has them for you.

Here is a link to Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1886947287/qid%3D1014008806/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F0%5F1/002-6182360-3213627

If I  did do it, I would be in fear that Geoff Shackelford would sue me for copyright infringment. After all he does deserve something for the effort. Another reason why, is I resent your tone. It takes a lot of time to gather and post all of this stuff. If you feel it isn't good enough for you, then simply bypass all of my posts and go find the stuff, and post it yourself proving all of my opinions wrong.

Its pretty funny that I have to be the one that offers you proof when you offer me nothing but your opinion whether I'm right or wrong, and don't think for one second this is about me, it is everything about the F-ing golf course!

Even better yet, you are tight with the Fazio organization, why don't you get the information from them and post it for us!

[jonathon kaye]

If anyone has the before photos of this hole, pls post them. With the before and after photos we may be able to make a reasonable assessment of the changes rather than just ramble on about Fazio's "unworthiness".

Is the character of the bunker shown out of character with the original style of bunkers or the current style? Seems to me the work that C&C did at the par 3 (with the bunker in the green) was close to the style of the original bunkers. Did C&C not get considered for the work because of the previous contreversy over the greens??

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jonathon
Do you own a library card? If so I suggest you check out 'The Captain'. Unfortunately, TFaz didn't appear to have a card either. Its surprising that you would be intimately familar with Riviera and C&C's work on the par-3 (not exactly common knowledge), but wouldn't have a copy of the book. How do you explain that?

[Daniel Wexler]

Actually, the present sixth green was done by Ron Forse, not Coore & Crenshaw....

[Leslie_Claytor]

Trivia question:  Identify two other whale tails at Riviera.  The first is easy because it's part of one of the world's best bunkers.  The second is a bit more trampled over!