Cypress vs Pebble....in an Iowa cornfield..

[JakaB]

Which course would serve the golfing world better without the views.  Replace the beautiful Cypress trees with Oaks..replace the Ocean with lakes and lets see which is best.   I know the company line will be Cypress and MacKenzie are infallible...but take the ridiculous backstop bunkers on 16 and 17 at Cypress and then add a managerie of Oaks on the finish and I don't think you will have all that.   Pebble could host a major without the Ocean...Cypress can't with..

[THuckaby2]

Interesting hypothetical.

But I have to ask:  why?  Why even ask?  Why does this matter?

You could do this sort of thing to ANY golf course.

IE, take away the sandy scrub-land and what's left at Pine Valley?

Take away the dunes and firm turf, replace it with overwatered lush green grass and flower-covered hills, and what's left at damn near any links course?

Sorry John.  I know what you are trying to get at, and I got it when you said this about Cape Kidnappers.  But the game remains played on the courses as they are, and one does not play with one's eyes closed unless one is Ray Charles, and he's dead.

 

But what the hell, I guess I'll play along.  In your hypothetical, give me Pebble.  Yes, it would suffer less from removal of its heart than would Cypress.  Of course both courses would be dead also, but hey, as I say I am playing along.

TH

[Mike Hendren]

1.  Halved
2.  Halved
3.  PB 1 Up
4.  Halved
5.  CPC - Square
6.  CPC 1 Up
7.  PB - Square
8.  PB - 1 Up
9.  CPC - Square
10. PB - 1 Up
11. Halved
12. Halved
13. Halved
14. PB 2 - Up
15. CPC - 1 Down
16. PB - 2 Up   (Oh my gosh!  Rich is right!)
17. PB - 3 Up
18. CPC - 2 Down

Pebble wins 3 and 1.

I must admit to being a Pebble Beach fan and have it equal to, if not slightly ahead of, CPC as is.

Mike

[JakaB]

Huck,

The comparison to Pine Valley is stupid...scrub brush is not the Ocean and the green sites at Pine Valley stand on thier own.   I bring this up because I'm sick of the people who find it convenient to say Pebble wouldn't be all that without the views...but I think its tournament history proves otherwise.

btw....what I said about Kape Kidnappers is the highest compliment I can give an architect..

[JakaB]

Mike,

Please explain your logic behind the 16th hole match..

[THuckaby2]

JK:

I absolutely understand you mean this as a compliment to the architect, both re CK and re PB.  I get it.  I got it when you said it on the other thread, I get it now.

But the thought remains silly.  So OK, my PV example isn't the best.  But still, what you are doing is removing the heart, lungs, guts, and reproductive organs of a golf course and expecting it to live on.  OK sure, in some weird sort of world this does make a certain sense... I mean sew her up without those things all beautiful women remain beautiful.

They just also remain dead.

As do these golf courses, as you are trying to evaluate them.

So Ok, I get it - what you want to try to evaluate is the playing characteristics ONLY of a course, taking away all visual stimuli... or at the very least you want to deny people using that as a reason for greatness, as in the Pebble example.

I continue to think that remains silly, or at least it's valid only for Stevie Wonder and maybe Rich Goodale (you do recall his legendary focus on the target, right?).

Oh well.  I'm with you re Pebble.  I just think this remains a rather silly way to look at golf courses.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Mike,

Please explain your logic behind the 16th hole match..

It's simple.  Rich and MANY others have said re 16CPC replace the ocean with a toxic waste dump and the hole becomes a long hard carry with a pussy way to go around and no good reason to do so.

They remain incredibly misguided, for the primary reason that the hole does not play over a toxic waste dump.

TH

[Mike Hendren]

Mike,

Please explain your logic behind the 16th hole match..

John,
Refer to the recent thread lauding the 16th hole at Pebble Beach.  I submit that without the ocean short right and dead left, the 16th at Cypress Point Club morphs from strategic to penal.  Let's place CPC's 16th in the Carolina low country with marshland substituted for the ocean.  Perhaps others can visualize it being the same hole.  I cannot.

I must also confess:  As a set, I find Pebble's greens to be the best I've had the privilege to see (The Old Course excepted).

I could be wrong.

Mike

Dont' try to describe the ocean if you've never seen it.
Don't ever forget that you just might wind up being wrong.
And I hope Anita Bryant never ever does one of my songs.
-Jimmy Buffett

[JakaB]

Huck,

I don't think this is silly at all....to take it another way...I am sick of participating on an architectural site where you are told how much better a course is before the houses get built out....I'm sick of it because I have found myself buying into it.   When was the last time you saw a house influence the bounce of your ball.   This seems to be the latest redanman diatripe...If it is not a core course it is not worthy architecturally....Do you realize there are people working in the business that think that the guys on GolfClubAtlas won't like a course just because it is next to a highway...what kind of message is that.   But that is not what this thread is about...this thread is about which is the best course architectually...and I'm not talking about the landscaping.

Sweet...I've got a new blog topic...Was MacKenzie simply the greatest Landscape Architect of all time..

[JESII]

I must also confess:  As a set, I find Pebble's greens to be the best I've had the privilege to see (The Old Course excepted).

I could be wrong.

Mike



Mike, what is it about Pebble's greens that appeal to you so much? I thought they were generally uneventful, but admittedly I may have missed something there.

[THuckaby2]

JK:

OK, I understand.
I just don't agree with the premise.
But if this type of thing upsets you, then rant on, my friend.

Me?  I'll take courses for what they are, how they are, and leave hypotheticals to the people who "get it" so much better than I do.  Hell I just play the game.  With my eyes open, btw.

 

Mike/JES:  Pebble's greens are WONDERFULLY subtle and tricky and damn tough to putt... so I tend to agree with Mike on this if this is why he likes them... there are some big contours, like 15 and 16, but there are also subtle ones that are very tough to read, like 1 and 3 and several others.  I love them also.  They are akin to TOC in this - subtle rather than overly brutal - and that to me is cool.  Of course poa has a lot to do with the subtleties at Pebble also...

TH

[Mike Hendren]

JESII

I'm a sucker for small greens - pure and simple, particularly those with a slight cant.  

Pebble's are soooo well-sited with 14 and 17 providing just the right amount of quirk to boot.

You could also be right.

Mike

[PThomas]

I just remember when I played Pebble my one time about 13 years ago -- and probably enver again unless I get a big discount! -- how blown away I was by how small some of the greens were, especially considering the length of the shots that had to be hit into them...

mmmmm, does that mean some of those greens are unfair???

[THuckaby2]

Interesting I just blew right past the fact the greens are generally small... and oh yes they are so... my big kick on them are the combination of quirk, severe contour on some, but subtle breaks on most.  No green is alike, really.  They are very tough to make any putts on... very tough to read... but Mike is right, the main thing is they are so darn small in general... and that is cool... different....

TH

[James Edwards]

Mike,

Have you ever been to Valderamma - If not, you should experience them as they are tiny - in most places they are 20 paces max front to back and have the severest contours!

[JakaB]

I've never seen Cypress but also don't ever recall much discussion about the greens....Could these be the most bland set of greens in the MacKenzie stable..

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Imaginative idea for a thread, but I have to say that I disagree with the comment..take the ocean away and Pebble could still host a major..no fricking way!!!
It has very little without the ocean, the teeth of the course 8/9/10 would be far less intimidating the same would have to be said of # 18.
Without the ocean, I believe many of the less specatcular holes would be criticised even more heavily than some do already..I ma thinking about #3..#4...#13..#15..all very mundane holes and not truly Open calibre unless you are at Pebble Beach.

Of course all this is mute, because you know what...it is Pebble Beach...and it is a great golf course
But Cypress is a little more than that

[James Edwards]

John,

I have been to a number of AMc courses, and I would say that CPC greens work well with the whole essence and flavour of the architecture and the setting within which its sits.  They flow seemlessly, relaxed contours with a sudden wave-like formation to add the dramatic element then returning to the subtle , calm movement as before.

I think Ive just had a moment

[James Edwards]

I would also add that the Par 3, 3rd is a fantastic one shotter - and may be a bone of contention in Mikes earlier Match play for me!

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

James,
100% agreement here, I think that #3 at CPC is one of the best holes on the course.
A wonderful one shotter with great subtle undualtions on the green, and awesome bunkering.

However I guess if you take away the framing cypress trees it could lose some of it's charm...but still it would be better than # 3 at Pebble.

[THuckaby2]

I've never seen Cypress but also don't ever recall much discussion about the greens....Could these be the most bland set of greens in the MacKenzie stable..

Good lord, not even close.  Calling CPC's greens bland would be like saying the 16th is "no big deal, simple driver to the right of the green."

Which just goes to show that some people CAN and likely DO have this misguided thought.

Go putt any of these and come back and report how bland they are.  Then add up your putts and think again.

16 does have a rather flat green, so that seems to be what gets people going on the Cypress bland greens kick.  But jeez, would you WANT a brutally hard shot like that to also then have a severely contoured green?  As it is, it follows the land that's there.... with is slightly sloped back to front.  The world overkill comes to mind if one wants that green to have severe contour....

TH

[JakaB]

MWP,

So...are you telling me the the caliber of player that makes his way into a major is more scared of losing a ball in an Ocean than a Lake.....

[JESII]

I will acknowledge that Pebble's greens are incredibly small when considering some of the shots required, and that is a bonus in my opinion.

The approaches to #'s 8, 9, 10, and 14 are awesome
My lack of enthusiasm is more about the actual greens and surrounds as opposed to approach shots. I am not of the position that they are bad, it just surprised me to read an opinion that thay were on par with St Andrews.

[PThomas]

but can't one make the argument that because Pebble's greens are that small , that they are unfair?  aren't longer holes "supposed " to have bigger greens?  can anyone think of another "famous" course tiht greens as small as Pebble's?

does Pebble get away with it because it is the exception that proves the rule?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

JB
no that is not what I am saying, but what I am saying is that if the ocean was a lake, the USGA would not condsider the site "special" enough for a US open..they tolerate the weaker holes because of the strength esthetic and otherwise of the other holes, take that away and you simply do not have a major championship venue..I dont really beleive anybody can disagree with that.