First off, don't change much there...it's pretty frickin' great. No re-grassing, no re-greening...7 and 8 are almost too strong for recreational play but plenty good and the pros can make double on those two, even with wedges into those green sites. The only hole I think has been rendered a joke by technology is #3. They'll be getting it up to the green apron in 2031 (LoL but then it'll be like 6 - 12 at the TOC last season).
As to this #1 and 2 discussion:
It's one thing if the USGA simply wants both of the holes to play 500+ yards; it's available; won't impact the architectural bones of the 2nd itself or the course in toto, and as long as any rear removals don't compromise qualities of #11...go nuts. But if such a change precipitates a permanent decision to say the argument is settled, Thomas wanted a three shot hole there and a bevy of other monkeying to honor that discovered "intent," then no way... that hole s already one of the most brightened, improved holes there, has a great look and that close mown treatment of the greenside hill has breathed absolute life into its denouement. (One of the best places to watch shots at Riviera). It may be a softening "4" for the professionals, but its a fair and fun half par hole for most of us.
I mean I've beaten the horse years beyond the glue factory, but don't these debates about #1/2 absolutely expose the individual hole par as a nonsense issue no matter if pars switch, (71) both are carded as fours (70), or both carded as fives (72)?... I mean either the elite Open field or Genesis field are going to make 4s and 5s on those holes, with the occasional 3 and the slightly more occasional 6... those fields are hitting 6, 7 and 8s on #1 approach and 5, 6s and 7s on #2 currently (owing entirely to uphill/downhill, prevailing wind). How is the par changing that, except for the audience consuming it and the scorecard printer?
Meanwhile, while I haven't played Riviera in almost 20 years, I recall and observe the architectural experience of the average player is two excellent challenging "half par" holes right out the gate, the zesty "lick your chops one to start"...the second, needing two sure blows which gets more sporty and demanding the closer to the hole you get.
Why would you get rid of that, do anything architecturally to facilitate that riddance or even change the card psychology of that? Even as dopey as card par is to actual experienced architecture, we can concede a tradition of presentation that works...WORKS.
Isn't LACC and TOC last Open starting to turn the worm...both to the need for rollback but regular popular acceptance of 270-275 as a four day score for international/national championships?
Riviera doesn't need anything but a softer, slightly bigger green on #10. Even a shortish golf hole should have one yard tolerance, and there the tolerance is about to dip under a foot...