Guess The Bunker

[Tommy_Naccarato]

This one is real simple.

This is a bunker that was supposedly designed in the vein of a certain very famous old architect's style.

-See if you can name the course, the architect and does it reflect his style. Please do not hesitate to comment on your truest thoughts.

[L_Urchar]

Faux Dr.MacKenzie.  Not a good rendition.
No clue where?  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

L_Urchar,
There happens to be one clue in one of the pictures, and no, this isn't Dr. MacKenzie's.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Is the clue the blinding white sand or the lone palm. I'd guess they are attempting to reflect Thomas, but they just as easily might have been trying for MacKenzie, but it looks like neither. It looks more like Joe Lee than Thomas. It's a poor and very clean modern (with that tell-tailed grass rolled over look) attempt of a bunker in the California-style. Based on this I think it would be better for this architect to create his own unique style borrowing what he likes or has worked in the past in the local - but unique. Hopefully this isn't a restoration - unless its at LaCosta, then its pretty good.

[TEPaul]

Is that the Riv?

[Anthony_Nysse]

It can't be Riveria...The bunker isn't "George Thomas" enough-No steep lips, and the lines are too Rees of another modern architect. If it is, it does not fit with the true Thomas bunkering.

[Mike_Cirba]

Merion?  

[Ran Morrissett]

I bet the bunker is:

1) at Riviera

2) that a bunker never existed in that spot before

3) that Thomas/Bell never built a bunker remotely like it on any of their courses

4) that, regardless, the work is being marketed as a sensitive restoration effort, and

5) that the national media - and the pros playing the course this week - will buy into point 4.

[A_Clay_Man]

I have to admit a little Tillie came to mind. I do like how it almost looks like the way water might naturally drain.

[Richard_Goodale]

I like the idea of those little grassy walkways that allow you to get into the middle of the bunker without disturbing too much sand, thus mitigating the need to rake, rake, rake after playing your shot.  Didn't the good Doctor pioneer this concept?

[Scott_Burroughs]

It would seem as if the palm tree and gallery ropes would give it away as Riviera.  Perhaps I'm reading the words differently, but I originally thought left fairway bunker meant left-side of the fairway, but that can't be a view of the left-side of the 8th left fairway, so it would have to be the right side of the left fairway, looking towards the right fiarway on the other side of the bunker.  However, if it was the right side of the 8th left fairway, why is there a cart path next to the bunker (between the fairways)?

  But it certainly doesn't look terribly penal, where a Thomas high-lipped bunker might prevent a player from reaching the green from there, or at least make it tough.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Ran wins on all five points, impressive work even with so few clues from Tommy.

Yes, this is Captain Thomas's first ever framing bunker, restored to his, well, to the Fazio groups vision of what he'd do if he saw these young players today. This lavish new 2002 bunker comes complete with big, bulky grassed over tongues reminiscent of the McBunkers at Bethpage. White sand is standard of course, and naturally, in the mode of classic McRestoration, this beautifully sculpted McBunker aims to stick out and separate itself from anything else on the course (except the other beautiful new bunker...which they will all look like within short time as part of an overall vision for Riviera). All of this McDesign comes on the house compliments of Fazio Design who have donated their services. Construction fees and dealer surcharges not included (but those are just $500,000).

No joking though, I still can't find this bunker in any of the old photos, but they insist this was a restoration. And yes, Ran, the media will buy into it. Of course, the LA Times writer had it on the wrong side of the fairway in his article. Left, right, ah, it doesn't matter. George Thomas, welcome home...to your worst nightmare.

[JEarle]

Tonny,
  It ( the bunker ) appears to have quite a few capes and bays mixed with "whales tails".  It appears to be in a warm climate ( palm trees ). I will say it is Palmers' work at Bay Hill or Floyd at Doral.

[Mike_Cirba]

Perhaps there is simply a new school of "RestFazoration"  design being hatched in the new millenium.  

It begins with the idea of calling it a "true restoration" over and over until everyone believes.

It ends on the ground with "big, puffy, upholstered" lips, and machine made capes and bays that attempt to pay tribute to the original architects, but ends up looking like a design associate's first attempt at creating something in the classic mode.  

Unfortunately, this isn't the playground we're talking about.  Instead, we stand witness to the permanent "destoration" of timeless classics.  

Someday in the near future, no one on the planet will have the slightest idea of what a real George Thomas, Hugh Wilson, and probably William Fownes bunker actually looked like.

[Ran Morrissett]

Geoff,

What's worse?

The fact that the architect is happy with the finished product? The fact that the architect peddles it as a restoration as opposed to a renovation? The fact that the club believes it's a restoration and has no idea what they really received? The fact that the media has no clue? The USGA's role in encouraging change to the architecture of the course?

The level of ignorance by all parties is staggering.

Sadly, big name architects have marred our great treasures for decades (RTJ's pinched fairways at Oakland Hills, the sad, sad 6th hole at Oak Hill East, etc.). Will it ever end?

Cheers,

[Tommy_Naccarato]

A little more SHIT.

From the 8th tee.

Closer to the green.

[Craig Rokke]

Tommy, Are you sure that's not a jigsaw puzzle piece?

[Geoff Shackelford]

Ran,
It's definitely the claims by the club and architect that this is in fact restoration, that I find most offensive of all. Though the USGA's shallow suggestions are so awful and wrong, but it's their tradition and no one expects much from them these days.  

But the club's discussion of doing thorough research, and then reverse comments suggesting that because Thomas made changes in 1929, that he might just do it again and thus, they can reinterpret things...it's just dishonest. To call it a restoration, no matter how much they believe they tried their best, but then to add things that never existed would be defined as a lie in my book. You just don't add things at the request of the USGA staff and try to claim it as restoration. We all know better. The media might not, but people who study such things do, and eventually the dishonesty has to come back to haunt all involved. They won't get the respect they were hoping to get by doing this work.

Though I will say the media is amazingly clueless too. Some clown guesting on the Golf Channel tonight, Charles Davis, suggested George Thomas is grinning from ear to ear because of this beautiful restoration work. He's sitting in a studio in Orlando, hasn't a clue what he's talking about, probably has never seen the course or couldn't tell George Thomas from Marlo Thomas, and he's claiming to know what Thomas would be thinking. Pretty obnoxious.
Geoff

[Mike_Cirba]

Does anyone yet know the "restoration" plans for Oakmont?  After hearing such good things about the deforestation there in recent years, I am concerned when I hear that bunkering will be "moved".  

Since clubs like Merion and Riviera have recently touted their "pure restoration" efforts, perhaps Fazio's group will bring back the grooved rakes in Pittsburgh?  Otherwise, they might be forced to argue that William Fownes actually would have preferred blinding white, well manicured sand if he had lived.

After all, who knows what any of the Golden Age dead guys would have done if they had lived?  Perhaps Fownes would have placed a scenic pond in front of the 18th green, removing those unsightly carry bunkers.  

[BCrosby]

This whole discussion parallels, point for point, the outrage some of us felt in ATL in 1992/3 after Rees Jones had "restored" East Lake.  

Back then there were quotes about how Donald Ross was  smiling in his grave.  A great golfing treasure had been recovered.  There were cudos handed out by the PGA and the golfing press (Whitten in particular) about the sensitivity and insight of Rees Jones and how impressive it was that he was able to set aside his ego to permit the true Ross flavor of the course to emerge.

Nothing, I repeat nothing, could have been further from the truth.

There are lots of creepy parallels between East Lake and Riviera.  

 - Both "restaurations" were the handywork of a single, powerful owner;
 - both were motivated by the desire to get major tournaments to the course;
 - both were done by a big name modern archie using the name of a golden age archie as cover; and
 - both marked a turning point in the political structure of the club where the interests of individual members were sacrificed to attract corporate members.

I worry that this sort of thing will become a trend.  

Why?  Because there are millions and millions of dollars buried in classic American golf courses.  If the prestige of these courses could be monetized, the numbers would blow your socks off.  What could the membership at Pine Valley get for the right to use the course for any commercial purpose permitted under law?   The purchase price would be staggering.

Fortunes can be made if you can get control of the membership, bring in a big name modern architect to beef it up to please the PGA or the USGA (pick your poison), get a big tournament, mix in the national press and - ala kasam - you can sell corporate memberships for a quarter of a million dollars each - now and forever more.

That's what happened at East Lake.  It's what is happening now at Riviera.  It'll happpen again, maybe at a course near you.

Worse, I don't know what you can do about it.  

Bob  


 

[SPDB]

Bob -
I think there was a little more at work in the restoration (or better put, the revitalization of East Lake).

A better characterization of what happened at East Lake might be that they took a course, smack dab in the middle of the worst kind of urban blight, and revitalized the club, the course, and, in the process, the surrounding neighborhood. If not for the horrendous "restauration," East Lake may have been found in the next edition of Wexler's "Missing Links." It might just be the case, that with the restoration effort the course still could be found in Missing Links, but I think you will concede that the current alternative is far preferable.

There may be parallels between East Lake GC, and the Riv., but aren't those parallels superseded by the differences between Pacific Palisades and East Lake Meadows?

Also, I wonder how many members raised hell when Donald Ross gutted and redesigned Bendelow's original 9.  

[BCrosby]

SPDB -

There is no question that Cousins did good things for the surrounding neighborhoods.  He is to be applauded.  That area of town has been transformed.

He was at the same time protecting his very large investment in East Lake.  That it happened to involve helping many needy people, so much the better, but let's not take our eye off the ball.  

Would Cousins have invested millions in East Lake Meadows (or any other impoverished neighborhood) absent his much larger investment in East Lake Golf Club?

Personally, I doubt it.  He had no track record of those sorts of commitments to poor neighborhoods before East Lake.

I also don't think that East Lake would have ceased to exist if Cousins had not bought it.  At the time there were many alternate plans afoot, though none involved the kind of money Cousins brought to the table.  

Cousins was not motivated by a love for old Ross courses and a concern that they be preserved.

In my humble view, it was a business propostion.  Pure and simple.  Much like the deal at Riviera.  Cousins (again, like the owners of Riviera) sought to monetize the value locked up in the prestige of East Lake.  From the beginning he had the foresight to understand that he could not unlock that value until the surrounding areas were vastly improved.  So his investment plan included dedicating monies to that end.  The Riviera owners didn't have the same "cost" attached to their investment.

And it has worked.  Splendidly. That his plan ended up helping many people desperately in need of help does not change my view that Cousins' real aim - being the astute businessman that he is - was to realize (perhaps many years down the road) the real worth tied up in the name "East Lake."

Let's not make Cousins out to be a saint.  He is a real estate developer.  That's always been his business model.  East Lake is another of his development successes.  You buy low, add value, sell high.  Nothing wrong with that.  But let's be clear-eyed about what was/is going on at East Lake.  It's very much like what's happening at Riviera.  That makes for a trend.  And that's troubling.