What holes at CPC did MacKenzie think might be considered unfair?

[Ran Morrissett]

I came across the following MacKenzie quote in Doak's new book:

"More than half the holes at Cypress Point were of such a nature that I knew by experience that they would at first sight be characterized as unfair."

Though MacKenzie didn't care about fair vs unfair with his match play mentality, I still wonder what holes he had in mind? I can see

1) the 8th hole with its blind drive over the shoulder of a dune to a fairway that runs away from you.

2) the 9th's ever narrowing fairway

3) the 16th, I guess

4) the 17th, maybe because of the cypress trees that were left in the center of the fairway (even though they were much smaller then).

Beyond those few (which coincidentally are among the very best holes on the course  ), I struggle to see how MacKenzie could have thought any of the other holes would be labeled "unfair" by a first time visitor.

Any thoughts on which those other 6-8 holes could have been?

Cheers,

[Eric Pevoto]

I was just looking through Shackelford's book and found this quote concerning the fifteenth hole:  "Its not by any means ideal, as there are not a sufficient number of alternative shots necessary to play it...The hole owes its reputation almost entirely to the beauty of the green and its surroundings."  So even on a short one shotter he was concerned with strategy.

Another thought was the putting surfaces.  I've never seen CPC so IMHO but would the severity of undulations been a concern back then? Looking at a green like #9(which blows me away), could they have been viewed as unfair?  By the way, how much of that up to the left is pinnable?

[ed_getka]

Ran,
  Having played the course (thank you, God!)I think Mackenzie may have been referring to the angles of approach a first time player would have on a lot of holes. The first time I played there I would play away from the tougher line to find the fairway and then find my approach angle was much more difficult. Playing into the Cypress greens from the wrong part of the fairway makes for a tough day unless your putter is working. The second time I played the course I was bolder off the tee and had much easier approaches. I agree with #8 due to the blind drive. #9 would be tough for the first timer who would tend to play to the left off the tee, thus leaving an almost impossible shot to a shallow green. The left has pin positions but you have to be coming from the right side of the fairway. #12 is another hole a first timer would probably play out to the left and then have an approach I put up there with the approach to Pebble #8. Just a few thoughts from a blessed golfer who has been to the Sistine Chapel of golf.

[Bob_Huntley]

I think No.8 could be considered unfair, although a properly hit three wood over the dune leaves litle more than a nine iron or wedge in.

As for No. 9 there is little pinnable room at top left. I saw Bobby Clampet three putt this hole from about twelve feet to lose the Crosby to John Cook. Is the hole unfair? I think not. Bash the driver and you can be in trouble, hit a five or six iron off the tee and wedge in.

I do believe that seventeen, although a wonderful test, is not what I consider, fair.To have trees the size of the cypress copse there makes it more of an obstacle course than anything. I know about the approach from short and right of the trees, but try that in a srong wind and you are more likely to finish in the ocean or ice plant.

If there is anything fair about No. 18 please elucidate.

[TEPaul]

Apparently Mackenzie thought that #16 was as it is today and was when built was almost not doable as a par 3. I suppose that could have been considered by him as "unfair" if that's what you want to call it.

Unbelievably, it was Marion Hollins who convinced him it could be done as a par 3. Apparently she hit a few drives at it and that must have convinced him. She was probably very long as she certainly wasn't small and she was a US Amateur Champion--right?

If you look at the photo of #8 green in GeoffShac's Cypress book you can clearly see that the green with today's greenspeed would be very iffy. Look at the right ball on the green on p.119 and imagine having that putt!! And then look at all the rolls and separate pin sections on that green. And then look at #3 green!! Have you ever seen a green that looks anything like that?

Off this topic, but just look at the bunkering on Cypress when it opened. The conditioning of it seems amazing for that day (the entire course, for that matter) and also some of it has a very "shallow" sand to lip look. It looks as if with that style a player had the option of putting out of some of the bunkers. But whoever it was who "drew the lines" on those bunkers had to have been one of the great bunkers artists in the history of the game. Have you ever in your life seen such imaginative, dramatic and beautiful looking things?

#17 might have been much more dramatic than it now is. Apparently there was a much longer tee than there now is that you can just see behind #16 green in the photo on p. 165.

Also, if you want to see the ultimate in a natural golf hole or minimalist design compare the photo on p. 42 of #9 in natural state with the photo on p. 120 of the finished product. Absolutely everything,  (bunkering, except one), fairway and green site are exactly the same as built as in natural state! The rear level on #9 green some thought was once greenspace but Geoff can find no real evidence that it ever was.

[Tom_Doak]

Well, he was known to exaggerate a bit.

However, I can imagine that back in the day, the drive to the 2nd hole was pretty stern, and the original green contours at the 1st, 5th, and 7th [in addition to those already mentioned] were pretty nasty.

[aclayman]

I concur with Bob that the eighteenth has the air of unfairness.
The 17th is IMHO plenty fair with all the room to the left, the shortish trees are really no obstacle.

While I have golfed there only once, my game that day was a throw back. I had injured my hand the day before and I was swinging like a 19th century little girl.

So, in answer to the Q, No. I don't see how any of the holes Ran mentions could've been thought of as unfair.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I think none of us really have a concept of the 1920s game.

I mean, imagine playing Cypress Point in 1926, shortly after its opening, with hickory-shafted clubs and a '26 ball.

As poignant as MacKenzie's layout is today, it would have been much, much more poignant and demanding then.

As much as I am a fan of Golden Age architecture, and consider the work of the masters of that era as the ideal model for future golf course architects, I still think that we sometimes discuss Golden Age architecture in "past tense" per se.

Improvement in equipment technology, playing techniques and course maintenance in the last 50 years has been dramatic, and has sadly lessened the poignancy of courses like Cypress Point.

We can't deny that... can we?

So, to answer Ran's question, perhaps a few holes at Cypress Point that we can't clearly point to today may have possibly been in jeopardy of being labelled unfair in 1926, according to "The Good Doctor"?

[herrstein]

That is the first time I have ever thought of a golf course being poignant.
I will confess that when I came to the 15th tee even and subsequently finished 7 over in a 45 mile an hour wind, the experience did bring a tear to my eye.
When the wind was blowing that hard- so hard I thought it was raining, but it was just the sea spray borne on the wind- 16 and 17 were unfair. In fact, the whole accursed game was unfair.