[Andy Levett]

Nice one Jeff.
It reminds me a lot of the opening hole at an earlier course, MacKenzie's Sitwell Park (1913). The fairway bunkering's a lot simpler there - just a couple on what Kelly described as the line of instinct. But the small angled green and greenside bunkering appears very similar.
There's OB left and you have to drive quite close to it to set up the best angle for the approach.
Unfortunately some saplings have been planted to the right of the fairway bunkers so in a few years it will become one of those conventional doglegged right holes. Sorry, no pics.

[TEPaul]

Lynn:

We see a lot of Ron Forse these days and I think I heard him mention that he did that right green. Did I heard that correctly? Also, was the right green added before soft-spikes were required on that golf course or afterwards?

[Jeff Fortson]

Tom H.,

I think you could make a very storng argument that modern technology has opened the door to more options in this case.  Great point.


Pat,

Re: alternate green...  I'm not sure why it was created.  One of the Shackelford's would probably be a better person to ask.  I assume it was to limit traffic on the regular green.  

In regards to the strategy, there is some but not nearly as much as the normal green.  You could theoretically try to drive the alternate green but a tee shot put in any part of the fairway works great.  It is a semi-blind approach as Howell's Bunker blocks the view of the bottom of all hole locations.


Forgive me for forgetting who brought it up but I wanted to address the option of driving your tee shot into the greenside bunker.  It really depends where the pin is.  There are certain hole locations that would receive a bunker shot perfectly.  There are others where the bunker shot would be a nightmare.  The strategy of driving the ball into the front bunker changes daily.  

Basically, I try to stay out of it at all costs.  The perfect tee shot played with a driver for me is just left of the green or just over the left edge.  Obviously, driving it on the putting surface is the most ideal, but rarely attainable.  I have played the hole about 100 times and been on the green off my first shot once.  Out of the 100 times I have played the hole I have hit driver about 45 times.

More pictures will be added later.  I'm going out for a shoot in an hour or two so more should be posted this evening when I get home.

Again, thanks for all the kind words.


Jeff F.

[THuckaby2]

Jeff:  cool.  Interesting in that we have a rare occurrence in this game where modern technology seemingly helps instead of hurts....

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Wayne and others,
Sorry for getting into the conversation kind of late here.

The 10th is just some magnificent stuff. It breaks a lot of rules and there are others that use a lot of its inspiration. Hopefully I can get Brian Curley to comment on what the hole is meant to both he and Lee Schmidt as far as inspiration because they have built several excellent golf holes inspired by the 10th, and they are a kick to play. In fact, I would say that right now they are some of the best holes in the Cochella Valley. Add Goose Creek's 10th in there too. While htey aren't exact renditions, you could surely see the inspriation.

Getting back to Thomas, Wayne asks if he actually built other renditions of the hole, and I think I've have found one where the strategy was similar--but not exact. The 13th at Ojai  and it's framework can still be seen, although the hole has been--like most of all of Thomas' great works--tampered with to the point of almost non-existence. One day with Lynn and Jim Wagner, I made sure I pointed it out to them that I think I had found an old green site, when in fact, after obtaining the 1929 aerial, found out it was the old left side bunker. Here is the snippet of the old hole. Now mind you my pithy artwork isn't showing how the finger of ravine extends into the 11th fairway. None the less, the strategies are similar as the 10th at Riviera.



So much more can be said about this hole--so much more, and we aren't even to the tournament yet!

[tonyt]

When did the club realize this hole could not be played everyday by the membership.....I would think for a hole to be truly great it would have to be able to be played.  This hole reminds me of Lido...great in theory and reputation but who gives a damn if it can't be played..

The hole demands of the average member that they be on or around the green complex in three shots, and find a way to make a 5 to nett par the hole, 4 to make a triumphant nett birdie, or 6 for nett bogey. Added to that is the fact that at no point does it require the average golfer to need a sleeve of balls to finish the hole, 'nor take 25 minutes to play it in a fourball. I cannot fathom how if the green on a short hole is tough to hit in regulation, it can be deemed to be a hole that cannot be played by the membership. If desired, a beginner could play the hole with any club in the bag.

[TEPaul]

Kelly Blake:

Interesting that you were speaking of Behr's "Line of Charm" and in the context of Riviera's #10.

First of all, since I've studied Behr so much it seems that his concept that was referred to as Behr's "Line of Charm" has been sort of misconstrued generally at least the name of it has but you got it absolutely right and basically, in my opinion, that quote and reference to it by Mackenzie is the only thing I've ever seen that explains it correctly.

Most people think the "Line of charm" is the taking away of that spot where a golfer instinctively wants to hit the ball with something like a bunker---eg generally right at an ultimate target whether it be a green or another specific target.

But what most people call the "line of charm" really is (as Mackenzie said, and you said) the "line of instinct". That is what needs to be taken away from the player as an option by a bunker feature or some other obstacle feature. Only by removing it can an architect then create a "line of charm". I do think this has been misunderstood because what MacKenzie (and Behr) should've more properly said is taking away the "line of instinct" by placing a obstacle feature on it creates lineS of charm---in other words, removing the "line of instinct" logically should create two, three or even four additional "lines" or options! This is obvious because then a golfer if given the room (fairway) could choose to play short of it, left or right of it or directly over it!

It may sound like a relatively simple concept once explained but it was developed by Behr apparently and it's one of the reasons he believed so strongly in width and also very minimal use of rough, generally speaking.

Behr's "lineS of charm" concept and the luxury of width sort of go hand in hand, as does his ideas of putting thinks like some bunkering completely INSIDE fairway lines!

[Pete Lavallee]

Thanks Jeff for helping us all understand why this hole is so
great! It is interesting that for a hole that is so universally
applauded, no one can come up with other holes that copy its'
merits. Tommy's right that Schmidt/Curley have done a few
that copy the disruption of the line of instinct and force
players to play to the edge of a generous fairway to get the
best angle; #8 on the Marriott's Shadowridge course comes
to mind. But none of these holes are as effective as the 10th
because they don't have a green that slopes away from the
golfer. This seems to be the real genious of #10; even with a
wedge in hand golfers cannot get close from the wrong angle.
Why do modern architects refuse to build greens which slope
away from the golfer, like #6 at TOC? Wasn't this one of
Ran's 10 Greatest Sins of Modern Architecture essay from the
Golfer magazine?

[Michael Moore]

Tony Titheridge -

I think Bar-Bar (as my friend's son used to call the purple dinosaur) is referring to the fact that because the green is so small on Riviera #10, they have another one tucked back there somewhere to give the first one some rest every now and then.
 
I have to agree with him on this one.
 
 
 

[Scott_Burroughs]

Here's a view of another good Schmidt/Curley driveable par 4
(in the middle, going up), #1 at Oak Quarry in Riverside, CA,
275 yards uphill.  I have a pic from the tee at home, but it's
not ready to post:

[TEPaul]

Kelly:

But now that you've mentioned Behr's "line of Charm" in relation to Riviera's #10, and now that I know what you really mean is the "line of instinct", let's look to see how the "line of instinct" works on Riv's #10!

As you said, the "line of instinct" from the tee on Riv's #10 is to hit the tee shot right at the green. Did Thomas remove that "line of instinct" right at the green as an option by placing a bunker or obstacle feature on it? Not at all. If you look at the photos above it looks almost like a straight fairway corridor right at the green (line of instinct). How inviting does that look to a player from the tee who may not be that aware of all the endless nuances of that hole? Pretty inviting and tempting, I'd say.

But the truth is, as Jeff F has said (and with his lines and colored dots as the places to drive the ball or not) above and every player and long player (like Davis Love) who knows that hole well knows, if a long ball hitter strays even a yard right of about the direct line from the tee to the left side of that right greenside bunker (which definitely looks like the ideal "line of Instinct") basically you're dead, particularly if the pin is in the back.

So Thomas didn't actually take the "line of instinct" away from the player by placing an obstacle feature on it he merely took away everything even a yard right of that line of instinct  from the player as a possible second shot option! How cool and sophisticated a "line of instinct" (lines of charm) use is that?

Lynn:

That's very interesting the green may actually slope slightly from front to back. I did not know that at all! The reason I know that hole so well is one morning starting very early (day break) I walked that course but since seeing Riviera's #10 is really why I went west, I did spend over an hour that morning looking at everything about that hole from every angle, measuring everything etc. But I didn't pick up on that slight front to back tilt on the green, though, and now the other thing I don't really remember is----does the front of the green slope right to left as much as the back---or more or less? For some reason I can't remember that part.

Lynn, the other thing about Riviera that I've said on here many times that really did strike me, is how despite the golf course being within that canyon which anyone can see is pretty confining and even despite the fact that the course probably has too many trees (far more than in Thomas's time) it just doesn't feel confined for some odd reason when you on any hole. How or why can that be? But it is!

Frankly, the thing I really took away from that trip to SoCal is the unbelievable uniqueness of what one might term "Canyon Golf" in Southern California. I sure never saw anything like it before or since.

[tonyt]

Tony Titheridge -

I think Bar-Bar (as my friend's son used to call the purple dinosaur) is referring to the fact that because the green is so small on Riviera #10, they have another one tucked back there somewhere to give the first one some rest every now and then.
 
I have to agree with him on this one.
 
 
 

I take the point. I guess the Lido reference and saying "able to be" played lead me to believe that the post was aimed at the ability of the less gifted rather than the traffic.

[Sean McCue]

The reason the alterative green was built was due to agronimic reasons.  Given the amount of play the course recieves some 75,000  rounds per year on greens that avarage a little over 3000sqft per green it not hard to understand why the need for an alterative green.  This concept started back in the late 1980's with the first alterative green being bulit for #16.  Most of the problems found at Riviera occur in the winter time when the soil temperatures drop significantly resulting in a drastic reduction in growth and abilty to withstand heavy play.  This was particularly a problem down on holes 5,6 and 16.  I remember soil temperatures down in the lower 40's was not that uncommon. Soil temperatures and lack of direct sunlight on #10 were not as much of a problem as was the size of the green and pinable locations for the amount of traffic.

Sean

[George Pazin]

I think Thomas did take away at least part of the line of instinct by putting in the cross bunker. In 1930, I doubt everyone was simply pulling out driver.

Has technology made this hole less interesting for pros, but more interesting for everyone else?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

George, The hole is still provocative as ever--I think.

Most of them are so tempted to take it to the hole yet few succeed and when they return in succeeding days, you can still see them wanting to go for it again and again--Most are lucky not to walk away wtih bogie or worse after it happens!

This is what makes the Jim Murray comment even more interesting.

Screw with it, and its going to cost you!

[THuckaby2]

Interesting question, George.

Why would it be less interesting for pros today?

Remember it is 315 to the middle, so say 310 to the left front edge.  There aren't many, if any, pros for whom that's not a driver.

I'd say the temptation for them is even greater today, as so many more can reach that front edge, and not with some herculean shot... Not too many years ago, it was out of reach for damn near all of them, so the choice was simple, as a few have explained here - just plunk down a 2iron and try to stay left.

What's your thinking here?

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Last year, many were going for the green only to push the ball on the right side, then forced with the reality of having to flop a shot out of Kikuya rough and get the ball to stop on that sliver of a green. It's an almost impossible task.

Many who are just off of the front can then try to chip on, and that's where it becomes even more frustrating because it too is slick and hard to stop, then takes the usual turn for the left and then can run right off of the green. This all sounds so difficult, and the length is what makes it that much more enticing to go for it.

From the Riviera yardage book that Geoff wrote that is unfortunately no longer sold in the pro shop--its one of the greatest souvenir yardage books I have ever seen:

Many consider this to be the best short par - 4 in all of golf! Why? Because of all of the various playing options from the tee. The smart play is to keep the ball left of the tee despite the urge to take the short cut to the hole.

If you want to be a bit more daring, aim at the palm trees that sit just behind  the bunker some 250 yards from the tee. From the left side, the small and well bunkered green is most accessible for the second shot, whereas on the right side it is difficult to hit the ball close to the pin. Watch the steep drop-off on the left front of the green. Also note that your yardages to the back of the green as this is the deepst putting surface on the course. Use the same strategy for the alternate green, but add 20 yards for your approach shot.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Remember it is 315 to the middle, so say 310 to the left front edge.  There aren't many, if any, pros for whom that's not a driver.

Funny, last night I replayed my Tivo copy of the Masters final round...Mickelson hit a 3 wood off the 18th tee.  Tee shot went 305 yds, leaving him 160 to the pin.

[Adam_F_Collins]

How important is it that this hole is #10? (especially to tournament play)

How important is it to the experience that this hole come at the start of the back nine?

Does this seem considered?

[TEPaul]

"How important is it that this hole is #10? (especially to tournament play)
How important is it to the experience that this hole come at the start of the back nine?
Does this seem considered?"

Adam:

In my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of those who really know this course (GeoffShac et al) this is huge---and probably totally psychological.

Ever felt when you lost ground on a front nine and when you total up what you shot, you feel when you step to the tee on the 10th---the next nine---it's like the next set in tennis---like a new beginning, or like a new chance to really go after it and make up lost ground?

Do you think a super tempting/high risk/reward hole like Riv's #10 plays into that psychology? I think it does bigtime!

[Doug Siebert]

Jeff,

Are your red lines places where birdie is very hard or where it will be hard to actually par the thing?  Like for example if you put it in the right rough going for the right green, you say there isn't much chance of holding that green, and it sure looks like that to me.  So you can try to get cute with it and risk dumping it in the bunker, or make sure you are over the bunker and likely go long.  How hard is the up and down from the rough over the green if you go long from right of the green, and how hard would the up and down be from that right bunker?

What I'm getting at is that for someone like me, who is long but not the best wedge player (understatement of 2005 so far) doing a layup to 100 yards I'm probably not going to make many birdies anyway, so my main criteria in deciding to go for it would be avoiding places where making a par is difficult, and I'm not sure if there really are any.  The only way I get to a place where there's a good chance of a birdie is probably to drive it on or just short of that green, but failing to do so doesn't put me in much worse of a position score-wise than if I laid up to leave a 100 yard shot in.

So its probably more of a decision hole for top players who have the ability to drive it there, but also have a good chance of making a birdie with the layup.  The risk of getting into a spot where they make 4 is a real one.  But beyond those guys you got the long hitter who doesn't have the super sharp 100 yard wedge game, and the shorter hitter who has no option because he can't get home (so he'll lay up whether or not his 100 yard wedge gives me good birdie chances)  IMHO those guys have one correct play from the tee and don't get all those options the plus handicaps and pros do.

[Doug Siebert]

Ah OK, Peter's post answers my question.  There seems to be quite a good chance of failing to make par from that right rough after all!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ah OK, Peter's post answers my question.  There seems to be quite a good chance of failing to make par from that right rough after all!

Doug,
From my post above:

Last year, many were going for the green only to push the ball on the right side, then forced with the reality of having to flop a shot out of Kikuya rough and get the ball to stop on that sliver of a green. It's an almost impossible task.

[TEPaul]

TommyN:

The tilt of the green right to left is quite something coming from the right side of the hole on the approach. The depth of what you are shooting at from over there is so shallow as to be virtually impossible. Do you really think it's a good thing that everything right of the direct line from tee to that green is basically taken away as viable or do you think it should be a bit more doable? Otherwise why isn't that hole basically about half as wide as it's always been (basically from the direct line left)? Do you think, as some might suspect, that the hole could be even better than it already is if that right greenside bunker just wasn't there as Thomas originally designed that hole? If that bunker was not there the approach would be very difficult from right of center for the very reasons of the greens shallowness from that angle and the tilt of the green from over on the right and from the tee with no bunker greenside right there would be a less a obvious target to aim at---eg no farther right than the left side of that right greenside bunker.

What do you think? Was the hole even better the way Thomas originally had it with no right greenside bunker?

Maybe the left greenside bunker wasn't there either but that's not so much of an issue.

[THuckaby2]

Remember it is 315 to the middle, so say 310 to the left front edge.  There aren't many, if any, pros for whom that's not a driver.

Funny, last night I replayed my Tivo copy of the Masters final round...Mickelson hit a 3 wood off the 18th tee.  Tee shot went 305 yds, leaving him 160 to the pin.

So the argument is that most pros would go for the green on #10 Riv with something less than driver?  That the hole is two short now, as a one-shotter, for all of them?

I don't buy it.  Oh, I'm sure at times Lefty and others CAN get a 3wood to roll out 305, on ultra-fast fairways such as Augusta.  I sincerely doubt he could do the same thing in early February at Riv.  And even if he could.. I'm just not seeing this as the norm, such that the hole is so "short" that it's less interesting for the pros than it once was.  If that was the case, every single one of them would be lofting it up to the green with a 3wood and you just don't see that.  If anything today's technology just makes it seem more doable, so way more try for it, and usually suffer the consequences... and even the astute ones, who know the higher percentage play, sometimes can't help the temptation.  Compare this to the day when NO ONE besides the huge hitters like George Bayer, etc. could even think of getting close to the green, and thus damn near every player just hit a 200 yard shot out there and a wedge in, and well... it simply must be more interesting, with more choices, today.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()