News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
The fourth hole is one of the most changed holes on the course (from what I can tell, based on aerials).  Mike Riley and Chris Cupit completely changed the orientation of the green and the bunker scheme to create one of the best functioning redans I've ever played.

Before:




After:




A series of Mike Riley's sketches hang in the clubhouse.  They are awesome and anyone with even a mild interest in GCA will love looking through them:




As mentioned, the 180 yard fourth is a well-functioning redan.  Shots landing anywhere on the right side of the green will funnel left, while low/drawing shots will catch the full effect of the contours and run all the way down to the back-left portion of the green.




The front-left bunker is fearsome, but as is the case with most redans, not a terrible miss as recoveries from there play into the slope of the green.




The green as seen from front-right.  Hard to capture the tilt of the green.




The 5th is another very changed hole, as the green was moved some 100 yards from short-left of the creek to beyond and right of it.




The 410 yard 5th is really strategic design at its best.  A carry bunker sits on the right side of the fairway, and which needs to be challenged to leave a reasonable approach into this angled and tilted green.




My host once told me that he would rather play from the fairway bunker on the right than approach a back pin from the centre of the fairway.  Obviously, this statement was questioned and really not understood.  Now that I have played the hole, I fully agree.  Approaching from the centre of the fairway is a very difficult task as the green runs away from this angle.




Approaching from the right side of the fairway is a more manageable task.




Two rolls in the green help to shed approaches from the left away from the putting surface.  Another great green.




When I first saw a picture of the 160 yard par-3 6th, it reminded me of the 8th at Sebonack in that the pond did not fit well with the rest of the golf course.  Like the 8th at Sebonack, this hole has a WILD green.




As seen from the front-right corner of the green, shots near the left perimeter of the green will funnel off of the green and a small backboard can be used to access front pin positions.




The real excitement is found past the green's mid-point.  A ridge runs across the green's centre, and forms half of a deep half-pipe in the back portion of the green.  Back-right is a green hole in one pin position.  Too bad I found it when the pin was in the front.




Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Also, anyone that takes the time to look at Mike Riley's sketch of the 5th, note the comment next to 'mature tree' -- rifw.

I don't know what it stands for, but I'd say 'right in the f***ing way'!  And for those that bailout from the tee.. it is!

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
I want to ask, how did those XXX (for mature) trees affect the old green site? I cannot envision where it might have been, relative to their position.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Martin Toal

  • Karma: +0/-0
I had the pleasure of playing at Rivermont with Mac in early December. It is a delightful course, and it did remind me of some UK courses along the way, although I was thinking more of one of the pine forest courses such as Woburn or perhaps the Edinburgh at Wentworth rather than the real heavy duty heathland courses like Sunningdale or Hankley Common.


Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
I want to ask, how did those XXX (for mature) trees affect the old green site? I cannot envision where it might have been, relative to their position.

Ron, I believe the old 5th green was right where that bunker on the left is.  It was a short hole -- maybe 360 yards -- and the green was short of the trees.

Robert Kimball

  • Karma: +0/-0
Great to see the discussion about this great "hidden" gem. I can't wait to see the pics of 13 green -- one of my favorite greens (and holes) on the course.
Words can't do justice to the quality of this course and the generosity of the members and Chris.

Rob

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Next Q: If you play a ball short right of the Redan green, will it bound up and on? It looks like the only feed comes from the green, to my clothed eye.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Rivermont is definitely one of the most fun courses I have played.  I had the pleasure of playing it with Mac, and again a few days later with Chris Cupit and Mike Riley (and, no, not a rater).

There are just so many things to enjoy about this course.  It is a great for hickory, usually playing firm & fast.  I love the number of tee shots that demand you consider the rollout, which will also tie into your ideal approach angle.  Also a great variety of holes and challenges. I can think of 2 top 50 courses I've played that possessed a homogeneity of tee shots which led the holes to blend together.

The putting surfaces are bold and wonderful, with so many fun "six pack greens."  (A 6PG is one you could spend hours on with just a 6 pack and a putter).  Several times during my rounds I would finish a hole and say "wait, I want to try something here." 

I think what makes Rivermont special is the level of attention it received from Chris Cupit & Mike Riley.  It seems like Chris has dedicated himself to perfecting this course like Ross did at Pinehurst.  I asked Chris how long he had been scribbling notes for improvements to the course. I think his response was "since I was 14" (may have the exact age wrong).  Listening to Mike & Chris argue over who should get credit for the 9th green was great fun ("I told you it wasn't too much.")

I'll add more as the holes get posted, but it is definitely worth a visit if you're in the region (or even a special trip).

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Chris,

What purpose do the left bunkers serve on the 5th hole. It would seem all they would do is save a poorly executed tee shot from a worse fate.

Why not just let the balls run out and get stymied by the tree?

I have never seen the hole in person but they would seem to be nothing more than framing and/or savior bunkers.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
This looks really very impressive. I agree generally with an earlier poster as it also kinda reminds me of UK pine-forest courses. Really good photos and the sketches are superb. I very much like the look of the Redan style par-3 4th hole and look forward to viewing some more of the holes. Curious about the use of both flags and wicker baskets. Not very keen on the cart-paths though, but needs-must I guess.

I'm not particularly familiar with grass types in the US other than that some types go dormant and change colour significantly at certain times of the year. Therefore I'd be obliged if someone could please explain what the various grasses are that look so light brown and then such a rich green and at what time of year does this happen and is it universal across the US or just in some areas?

In addition, to what extent do architects use the different glass types/colours to highlight or lessen features on a course by trying to out-fox the player from the strategy/playing approach aspect of a hole (eg hiding dog-legs, us of dead ground etc).

All the best.

Wade Schueneman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Thomas,

The greens are bent and the rest bermuda.  The one unfortunate feature of this mix (which is common in the southeast) is that the greens are at their best in the late fall and winter (while the bermuda is brown-although it can still play very well if it does not rain too much). 

All,

Having played Rivermont dozens of times I can say that there are only a handful of courses that I have ever played that I might choose over Rivermont as a "regular" course.  I can see how it may be disappointing as a destination course (i.e. it does not look spectacular or have perfect surrounds).  What is amazing is that the drainage is bad and the routing is very restricted due to housing, AND YET the architecture and finish work (especially the greens and bunkers) provide endless interest.  I cannot tell you how excited I am every time I return.

The real question is, if such a terrific course can be built and maintained (lots of credit to Mr. Cupit here) on a sub-par site with serious routing restrictions, why isn't the world populated with fun interesting courses? 

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Also, anyone that takes the time to look at Mike Riley's sketch of the 5th, note the comment next to 'mature tree' -- rifw.

I don't know what it stands for, but I'd say 'right in the f***ing way'!  And for those that bailout from the tee.. it is!

Yep--pretty good guess.  Though in fairness to Mike, that was my idea--he is far too much of a gentleman to think of that himself and would have never put that in without my prodding  :D

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Next Q: If you play a ball short right of the Redan green, will it bound up and on? It looks like the only feed comes from the green, to my clothed eye.

Ron,

Mark was right re: the old green on hole #5.  The left fairway bunkers are located where two front greenside bunkers used to be.  The old hole was about 350 yards and was a slight dogleg left.  Pretty much a nothing hole--drive and pitch to a two tiered green surrounded by four bunkers--two in front and two in back.  The trees played absolutely no role in the old hole.

The new hole crosses a creek that was never involved in the old hole and added about 90-100 yards to the hole. 

The redan plays well and if a player tries a running shot or drawing shot that lands short it will normally bound up.  The drawing shows a small plateau extending about 10-12 yards from the front right and there is a small knob about 3 yards short that i there to screw with you :D

Now when the hole is located on the front right I think it is a tougher shot.  Some players may be able to hit a iron like a 7 iron into the green.  With a higher trajectory shots landing just short of the green will not bounce up and leave a tricky chip to a green falling away.   

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Chris,

What purpose do the left bunkers serve on the 5th hole. It would seem all they would do is save a poorly executed tee shot from a worse fate.

Why not just let the balls run out and get stymied by the tree?

I have never seen the hole in person but they would seem to be nothing more than framing and/or savior bunkers.

Great question :D

This hole changed the most of any on the course and I think is a great example of width in golf.  One thing that can't be seen very well is that the creek that crosses in front of the green continues as a hazard all along the right side of the hole and driving zone.  Also, if you carry the right bunker (270) from the tips slightly downhill, and go just a little right you have a series of humps and bumps (existed before the renovation) that can give you a squirley lie.  It is a better angle but tougher lie.  

The two left fairway bunkers are meant to deceive a golfer.  This fairway is some 70 yards wide.  I believe that the best way to "trick" a better player is to not frame or define small targets for them.  (The 13th hole is another example but that is another story).

By providing a huge fairway I hope to give the regular player plenty of room on a tough hole and I hope to lull the better player to sleep.  They see all kinds of room and may just end up "playing safe" to the distant bunkers on the left that look lie a good place to hit it.  Both bunklers are about 300 yards from the tee so it is hard to reach them which is another reason a better player may just hit it over there.  Anything at those bunkers or left (where there is still more room) is blocked out (a little) by the large hardwood tree (the r.i.t.f.w) one  :D  A player would have to try and hit it over (very difficult) or play a substantial draw to get around the branches.  Also, the green contour has two very large internal mounds on the inside left of the green that make the approach from the left difficult.

This is a 9400 sq. foot green described as a "potato chip" by Mike.  First third influenced by the two internal mounds pushing everything right and short.  The middle section that carries the humps is pretty level and then the back portion has a back right shelf and a back left area that turns back to the left.  A back left hole location can allow a player who carries the ball deep into the green to actually feed a ball back and left to the hole.

I'll post a few pictures that may show some of the roll of the greens even better.  

So, the left bunkers are really meant to catch the better players' eye as the last thing he glances at as he subconsciously tries to avoid the hazard and bunker on the more aggressive right side play.  Also, by giving such a wide target a (right handed) golfer that overswings on a long hole may pull his shot to the left and again find himself in the worst spot to approach the hole from.

The last thought is that Mike and I really tried to avoid the type of hole where the "correct line" is obvious.  We prefer to let the player decide what may be best for them.  So on #5 while I may think the ideal line is to play just slightly over the left hand side of the right bunker some players who don't want to risk the bunker or the uneven lie on the right or the right hazard may prefer the safety of the wide bail out left even if it means having to play a great shot over, around or maybe under the tree on the approach shot.  Also, the hole location may dictate how much risk one needs to really take off the tee.  With a front right hole for example, a three wood safely left may be the play.    

Hope this explains a little what we were thinking :D

Oh--I think someone asked about the grasses:

Tees are diamond zoysia, Fairways are 419 Bermuda and Greens are a blend of A-1 and A-4 bent.  Broomsedge, Indian grass, little blue fescue, foxtail, spartina, tall fescues, assorted hard and chewing fescues, scotch broom, switch grass, lovegrasses, native azaelas all over the rest of the course.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 03:41:40 PM by Chris Cupit »

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Another view of #4:


From the left side of #5


A couple of pictures from behind #6 green




With the hole front right, here is the shot is you are short/right:



Short left also has some neat movement:

Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Chris, thank you for the great commentary, I hope you'll continue to follow along!

Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
The 7th is a 500 yard uphill par-5 where the golfer that plays near the creek that runs down the left will gain a significant advantage.  Fortunately, the right to left tilt of the land assists those that bailout to the right from the tee.




A creek runs diagonally across the fairway near the 150 yard marker.  Golfers that mis-hit their tee shot will have to negotiate a lay-up, while those that played their tee shots to the right side of the fairway are left with the longer forced carry.




The green tlits significantly from back-to-front and this small carve out at the back-left portion of the green makes for a great Sunday pin position.  How much tilt is there?  Let's just say that both of my playing companions putted it from above the pin to 15 feet off the front of the green.




The par-4 8th offers split tees.  The first picture is from the newly-added 490 yard tee where a cool top-shot bunker gives a line from the tee:




From the members tees, the hole plays a more manageable 400 yards.  The tee shot is played downhill to a fairway that falls away to the right, before ascending to another wonderful green.




A false-front awaits, ready to catch shots landing on the front portion of the green, and a swale on the right side of the green collects many well struck shots to the green's right perimeter.




Like the 8th, the 360 yard 9th is a down and up par-4.  Golfers must choose whether to lay-back to the width of the fairway short of the fairway bunkers, or play to the narrow, inclined part of the fairway around the 100 yard marker.




The longer the tee shot, the better the view of the green.  An alps-like feature anyone?




And upon cresting the hill, the golfer gets his first view of the punchbowl green.  An alps-punchbowl combo, now where have I seen that before?




Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0

The real question is, if such a terrific course can be built and maintained (lots of credit to Mr. Cupit here) on a sub-par site with serious routing restrictions, why isn't the world populated with fun interesting courses? 

Never having been there, my immediate question after seeing the photos was how sub-par is the site?  The land itself looks real interesting.  Rolling topography, a creek that meanders here and there, a cool-looking redan site. 

Chris obviously is doing a great job on the course -- and likely could improve many courses in a similar way, given the opportunity.  That's probably the answer to your question.   

Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mark,

Did you play the basement tee on #8?  At 490 yards, clearly that tee is meant only for the elite, but I honestly can't fathom a more nightmarish tee shot in all of golf.  Uphill & blind to a fairway that slopes away from you to a hazard along the entire right side of the hole.  In firm conditions, I envision that only a strong draw has any hope of staying in play.    Even playing the favorable angle from the upper tees, I saw reasonable drives come dangerously close to the right trouble.

While I generally enjoyed the fairway tilts, I think some were flirting with being too punitive in very firm conditions, especially when they headed toward penalty stroke areas.  In particular, the tilts on #8, 12, and 15 significantly narrowed the effective width of those fairways. However, having only played twice, my recollection of those landing areas may be foggy.

Perhaps the intent was to be very demanding off the tee, as this course will significantly reward golfers who can bend their driver both ways into the slopes.  That intent probably fits in very well with the general shot-making / thinking theme of the course.  However, I could envision someone with a loose driver (especially a slicer) having a long day.

In terms of why Rivermont may not be considered Top-100, I imagine the bold contouring, on both fairways & greens, to be a polarizing factor that may hurt its overall average score.

Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Kevin, I didn't play the 'basement' tee on 8.  Mac took me over to take a look at it, and man is that intimidating.  It is a very cool angle from down there, and I think the hole may play as an interesting par-5 for a pea-shooter like me from down there... except that I can't reach the fairway over the bunker!! I checked on Google Earth and it is a 250 yard, uphill carry to reach the fairway on a line over the bunker (230 just to clear the bunker).

Yes, you're right the fairway tilts pretty significantly there.  From the 'up' tees its not so bad.. you have to play to the left side of the fairway, or hit a draw.  But from the lower tees you MUST hit a draw.

There is a lot of reverse-cambre at Rivermont.  Holes 2, 3, 8, 12 all have this feature.  It does increase the demand from the tee, but it does this subtly.

Below is an overhead image of the 8th.  The arrows show the tilt of the fairway and it is clear the from the lower tees, a right to left shot is a must!


Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Looking back at some of the other Rivermont threads, here is a little bit of Club history from Chris Cupit.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35566.msg720502.html#msg720502


Chris,

I know how busy you always are running the club, but it would be fascinating to hear some of your thoughts behind the hole re-designs as Mark goes through them.  Looking at the HistoricAerials and Google Earth imagery, the revisions are pretty drastic in a number of cases.  I've always been fascinated by course evolutions, and this one would be a great case study.

Mark already pointed out and you discussed the changes on #4 and 5.  I was curious about a few others:

-  Was the shift of the green on #1 (to the right) driven by a desire to change the approach on #1, or more to accommodate a new left tee on #2 (creating a more challenging drive)?

- The old 7th green was very interesting in shape, with some small pin areas.  Was that a love/hate hole among the members? 

-  Was the old 11th ever driveable?  Without that potential, was it simply a lay-up, wedge hole for everyone?

Thanks for your insight.

Charlie Gallagher

  • Karma: +0/-0
I want to agree with those above who think that Rivermont is a hidden gem. I played it last year with another GCA poster who is a member. Like many Atlanta area courses it is a challenging walk, but it has fine architectural merit. The point about the quality of the Par 3's is right on. The 4th is a fine redan style hole, 14 helps transition the player to higher land and 17 transitions you back down to the stream bottom and returns the player to the club house. The par 4's and 5's are very solid with holes early in each 9 that employ a stream as  part of the strategy. Overall the greens have considerable movement. There is a short par 4 on the back, 13 I believe, that plays uphill to green perched on a high shelf. The green has a swale and enormous slope on its back half  It's rather square shaped and  looks like a throwback to the golden era of architecture.  Another,  my favorite, is the 5th hole,  a long right curving par 4 along the river bottom land that forms the first section of each nine. The drive needs to be fimly struck to access the green which has some turtle back qualities incorporated in its surface. Deception is a factor in the approach because large trees in the vicinity of the green  appear to be in play where actually they are more of an aesthetic feature. The stream is a factor on the drive for a long hitter. Visually striking and a good challenge.

If you are in the Atlanta area Rivermont is worth a visit. I am looking forward to playing it again.


































































Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Looking back at some of the other Rivermont threads, here is a little bit of Club history from Chris Cupit.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35566.msg720502.html#msg720502


Chris,

I know how busy you always are running the club, but it would be fascinating to hear some of your thoughts behind the hole re-designs as Mark goes through them.  Looking at the HistoricAerials and Google Earth imagery, the revisions are pretty drastic in a number of cases.  I've always been fascinated by course evolutions, and this one would be a great case study.

Mark already pointed out and you discussed the changes on #4 and 5.  I was curious about a few others:

-  Was the shift of the green on #1 (to the right) driven by a desire to change the approach on #1, or more to accommodate a new left tee on #2 (creating a more challenging drive)?

- The old 7th green was very interesting in shape, with some small pin areas.  Was that a love/hate hole among the members? 

-  Was the old 11th ever driveable?  Without that potential, was it simply a lay-up, wedge hole for everyone?

Thanks for your insight.


Month end but I will jump in soon--I love talking about the course!! ;D

Wade Schueneman

  • Karma: +0/-0

The real question is, if such a terrific course can be built and maintained (lots of credit to Mr. Cupit here) on a sub-par site with serious routing restrictions, why isn't the world populated with fun interesting courses? 

Never having been there, my immediate question after seeing the photos was how sub-par is the site?  The land itself looks real interesting.  Rolling topography, a creek that meanders here and there, a cool-looking redan site. 

Chris obviously is doing a great job on the course -- and likely could improve many courses in a similar way, given the opportunity.  That's probably the answer to your question.   

Jim,

The meandering creek is used very well, but causes significant drainage issues (which is common here with the clay in the soil).  Also, the land is rolling, but severe in places (15, 16, 17 and a few other holes clearly presented huge challenges to the architects).  Also, tied to all of this is the fact that the housing really restricts the architect (as does the road running along 15 and 16).

I do not mean that it is a terrible site.  I jsut mean that there were/are significant cons . . . BUT THE COURSE IS OUTSTANDING!!!  I highly recommend visitng if you have any interest.

Josh Tarble

  • Karma: +0/-0
Man, Rivermont looks outstanding!  I am so bummed I spent my time and money at one of the famous ATL neighbors rather than here.  My wife's family lives in ATL, so next time we're down I know where to look.

Can't wait to see the rest of the tour.  Thanks Mark.