[Kevin_Reilly]

I just wonder if Pat or anyone would put it in the rareified air in which CPC16 exists.  The shot requirements are very similar to CPC16.  If it's not in that air, than why not?

Is the WIND off the Delta the same as the WIND off the Pacific?[/b]

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen's gonna have to answer that.  I do recall it gusting pretty hard at times out there in Pittsburg.

But say the winds are similar - and remember there are plenty of times it's calm at CPC.

What other aspects would make this hole fail in comparison to CPC 16?  The fact one can hit a straight 80 yard wedge to shorten the hole?  

TH

[Kalen Braley]

I can't recall if the default wind has that hole playing downwind, into it, or sidewind.  But I do know it blows a whole hellavu lot out there.  

I would imagine 16 at cypress has varying conditions as well being on a piece of land that juts out into the ocean. (Both that hole and the whole penisula to boot)

[Tom Huckaby]

I would imagine 16 at cypress has varying conditions as well being on a piece of land that juts out into the ocean. (Both that hole and the hole penisula that is)

You would imagine correctly.  The prevailing wind is quartering from the right, generally against, and it surely can blow pretty hard.  But I've played it 5 times in 5 different winds including two in pretty dead calm...so either I'm really lucky or the winds do change from time to time there.

THis is a valid consideration though.  If in fact you had a hole with similar shot requirements and one has winds and the other never does, the one with the winds would be more interesting and if a difficult hole to begin with, more famous or infamous.

[Kalen Braley]

Here here then.

I think a group outing to CPC is in order so we can get this thread put to bed once and for all!!  

Just send the time and place and I'll be there, although I may have to pass on Pine Valley or something that day!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen & Tom,

I can't tell much from this picture, but, are you actually telling me that [size=4x]
THIS HOLE IS A DUPLICATE OF # 16 AT CPC [/size][size=8x]?[/size]

Are you guys high, crazy, blind
or a combination of the above ?

You needn't answer, the vote has been taken.

Just ask yourselves the following question.

In the spirit of CBM, SR and CB would you say this hole would be classified as a reasonable "template" of the 16th at CPC ?

[Kevin_Reilly]

Someone please photoshop a picture of either FBD or Puffy Tom into that Delta View picture.  Then a true comparison with its "twin" on the coast can be made.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

You just proved our point.

Of course it's not a duplicate of CPC16.  There's no ocean, no cliffs, none of the majesty.

But in terms of shot requirements, well Kalen described it already - it is very, very close.  The only difference is the water starts 80 yards from the tee.  Stretch the water back to the tee and yes, one could very easily call it a CPC 16 template.  Outside of that, what part of this is patently different from 16 CPC:

1) From the White tees it is 219 yards to the middle of the green and a 205 yard carry over water to get there.
2)  It has a bailout area left.
3)  Both the tee box and green are elevated
4)  It is mounded behind the green.
5)  Water is in play short and to the right of the green.
6)  It has 2 greenside bunkers.


Kevin - please understand that the point Kalen and I are trying to make is that it's OBVIOUSLY NOT a "twin" of CPC16 the way we look at things... But if Patrick is honest and consistent, than the way he looks at things, it necessarily must be.  OK maybe not a twin given I have no doubt he's going to put HUGE focus on the truly inconsequential 80 yards of grass in front of the tee before the water on this Delta View hole... but it's at the very least a kissing cousin the way he looks at the game without any shadow of a doubt.

So if a picture is to be added in, it should be Mr. Mucci on each.  HE is the one that finds the holes similar, not us.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Thanks Tom,

Well said. I was just going to chime in and say that I never said it was a template of 16, just very very similar in how it plays.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

You just proved our point.

Not really, I only proved that your eyesight and judgement is bad.[/color]

Of course it's not a duplicate of CPC16.  There's no ocean, no cliffs, none of the majesty.

The absence of the ocean or cliffs is irrelevant, as long as their are suitable hazards that replace them, and those replacement hazards and the topography seem to be missing, based on the tiny photo.[/color]

But in terms of shot requirements, well Kalen described it already - it is very, very close.  

I don't consider having 80 or more yards of fairway or rough in front of the tee to be "very, very close".  It's a considerable design difference in the context of templates.[/color]

The only difference is the water starts 80 yards from the tee.  

And that's the ONLY difference you see in that tiny photo ?[/color]

Stretch the water back to the tee and yes, one could very easily call it a CPC 16 template.  

If you'll provide the location of the club, I'll "Google Earth" it and get back to you on that one.   But, my guess is that it's different, if not radically different from # 16 at CPC.[/color]

Outside of that, what part of this is patently different from 16 CPC:

Let me review "Google Earth" and I'll let you know.[/color]

1) From the White tees it is 219 yards to the middle of the green and a 205 yard carry over water to get there.
2)  It has a bailout area left.
3)  Both the tee box and green are elevated
4)  It is mounded behind the green.
5)  Water is in play short and to the right of the green.
6)  It has 2 greenside bunkers.

All of that is immaterial, it's the juxtaposition of those elements that will determine if its a reasonable template or an inferior copy[/color]

Kevin - please understand that the point Kalen and I are trying to make is that it's OBVIOUSLY NOT a "twin" of CPC16 the way we look at things... But if Patrick is honest and consistent, than the way he looks at things, it necessarily must be.  OK maybe not a twin given I have no doubt he's going to put HUGE focus on the truly inconsequential 80 yards of grass in front of the tee before the water on this Delta View hole... but it's at the very least a kissing cousin the way he looks at the game without any shadow of a doubt.

So if a picture is to be added in, it should be Mr. Mucci on each.  HE is the one that finds the holes similar, not us.

Where did I say that I found these holes similar ?
You have me confused with someone else.[/color]

Tom Huckaby, with respect to your reference to the architect's intent, did you know that Chandler Egan moved the 5th green to the left, closer to the ravine and away from the Ocean ?

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Nice try, but that's more Houdini magic.

The point remains that the main differences between the two holes are things that you believe don't count.  You can continue to try to divert attention by focusing on the trivial - a tactic of the great Houdini for sure - just realize that we are completely on to you.

As for the architect's intent at 5PB, nice try focusing on tangential issues.  But once again, I am on to you.  Hell that issue matters not anyway; you said herein that on the overall the new hole is superior and that's all that truly matters to me.  This isn't high school calculus, so how we arrive at the right answer matters not.  I just remain pleased that you got the right answer.  My teaching is doing wonders with you.

 

[Kalen Braley]

Here is the hole:

To note, only 1 green side bunker, not 2.

[Adam Clayman]

The absence of rear bunkers is also a key differential. Mackenzie's use of them is prolific. (isn't it?) From what I have seen Stanely Thompson did the same.

 Even the old Shore Course had at least one that, as I recall, was not one of Uncle Bob's favorites.

While most of these "eye candies" may be rarely functional, they have their affect and effect on those who are either blind to, or ignore, them. Penalizing those too aggresive..

[Tom Huckaby]

Obviously there are more differences than similarities of these two golf holes.

BUT.... one cannot deny that the two holes have this in common:

1)  200+ yard carry over water
2)  Bailout area left; strategic choice available to go left if one can't make the carry
3)  Both the tee box and green are elevated
4)  Mounded behind the green.
5)  Water is in play short and to the right of the green.
6) Green side bunker(s)
7) Lost ball potential left
8 ) Unpredictable and sometimes fierce winds

That's a lot of similarity; and it's all about how the holes play.

So why is CPC16 great and this hole not?

It can't be because of a lack of rear bunkers or a second greenside bunker, or 80 yards of useless fairway before one reaches the water.... Is this hole REALLY lesser ONLY because of these issues?

I know my answer, and I believe I know Kalen's, and Adam I know yours too if you stick with thoughts earlier expressed on this thread..... I just wonder how the great Houdini will escape this time.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Obviously there are more differences than similarities of these two golf holes.

BUT.... one cannot deny that the two holes have this in common:

Of  course you can[/color]

1)  200+ yard carry over water  Not true.
     You can go straight at the green with a lay up, without
     risking any carry.[/color]
2)  Bailout area left; strategic choice available to go left if
     one can't make the carry  There's NO carry
     involved in playing left[/color]
3)  Both the tee box and green are elevated
     That's not discernable from the phots.  There doesn't
     appear to by any substantive elevation change between
     the tee, green and the area surrounding both.[/color]
4)  Mounded behind the green.
     It doesn't seem so from the photo, but, other photos may
     help[/color]
5)  Water is in play short and to the right of the green.
      right of the green seems safe as do shots
     beyond the green[/color]
6) Green side bunker(s)   Where ?[/color]
7) Lost ball potential left How ?[/color]
8 ) Unpredictable and sometimes fierce winds
     Where ?  You're not going to equate the winds on both
     sites, are you ?[/color]

That's a lot of similarity;
Only in your eyes, the holes aren't remotely close to one another, anymore than the 4th at Baltusrol with a litte more bail out.[/color]

and it's all about how the holes play.

Never having played the hole pictured, I can't attest to that.
But, with the luxury of 100 yards of fairway straight off the tee, only someone with an agenda could claim the holes play alike.

In addition, there's no forced carry on the layup as there is at # 16 at CPC.[/color]

So why is CPC16 great and this hole not?

Because they're remarkably different holes in form and in function.[/color]

It can't be because of a lack of rear bunkers or a second greenside bunker, or 80 yards of useless fairway before one reaches the water.... Is this hole REALLY lesser ONLY because of these issues ?

Those and MORE.

That you don't see it is remarkable, and probably attributable to your intense desire to see similarites where none exist.[/color]

I know my answer, and I believe I know Kalen's, and Adam I know yours too if you stick with thoughts earlier expressed on this thread.....

I just wonder how the great Houdini will escape this time.

WITH EASE  [/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen & Tom Huckaby,

I just finished viewing Google Earth.

In particular, the two holes under dicussion.

Only a deranged individual could say the holes are similar, in topography, configuraton and play.

I'll leave it to those who view both to draw their own conclusions.

Tom Huckaby,

You've wasted the GREAT HOUDINI's time with this non-exercise, exercise.

[Mike_Cirba]

We're on page 5 already...is this a Merion thread?  

The new 5th hole is....underwhelming and uncharacteristically generic and unimaginative on a course where every hole, whether awesome or questionable, at least has some very unique characteristics and...well..character.

The old 5th hole was...well, I never saw it in person, but from everything I've seen on television and read about it, seems like a hole that was so questionable on every standard level that it probably was superior in comparison.   By that, I simply mean that it wasn't a hole that could easily be forgotten, which is something that the new hole could never claim.

[Tom Huckaby]

Great Houdini:

You have to remember that each of Kalen and I have played the golf hole.  So in fairness, you're going to have to take our word for some of this.  I know you are a fair man; but more importantly, you yourself have said that playing a golf course trumps photo viewing.  So... of course some of what we are asserting about the Delta View hole is not visible in the photo, or on Google earth.  But the following is true:

1)  200+ yard carry over water.
If one is to reach the green, that is required.  Yes one can layup a 70 yard wedge and then do 130 over, but then again one could do pretty much the same thing at CPC, going sideways with a tiny carry over the side of the ocean inlet.  I don't see this as a huge difference between the golf holes.  But I gather you do, so we'll note that as difference #1.  

2)  Bailout area left; strategic choice available to go left if
    one can't make the carry  
You posit that this choice requires no carry over water, but it certainly does - it depends on how close you want to get to the green - and the largest, smartest layup area does require a carry over water.

3)  Both the tee box and green are elevated
Of course you can't see it on the photos, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Just take our word for it.  It's not all that different from CPC 16 in this respect.
 
4)  Mounded behind the green.
Again, it is such and of course the flattening nature of photos doesn't show this - it's fairly similar to CPC16 only sans rear bunkers.  Lack of rear bunker is difference #2.

5)  Water is in play short and to the right of the green.
WAY WAY right would leave a ball playable if one gets very lucky, most likely it would be buried in rough and trees.  Right in any normal sort of shot pattern means the ball is wet.  But this is difference #3.
 
6) Green side bunker(s)
You can see that in the picture.  Difference #4 is there are 2 on CPC16, one on DeltaView 18.

7) Lost ball potential left
What you can't see in the pic are the trees in front of an OB fence which extends to the left. The Great Houdini seems to have used his magic to make this disappear from his version of GoogleEarth, where it is plainly visible to this viewer.    Bottom line is hit the ball too far left and you will be lucky to find the ball - pretty darn similar to CPC 16.

8 ) Unpredictable and sometimes fierce winds
Yes - the winds are actually pretty similar at both sites.  It does blow pretty hard where this course is.

So there we have it.  I count 8 similarities in different degrees of strength, with only the 4 differences noted above.

So no more stalling or trickery.  Even the great Houdini at times gave straight answers.  Are those four differences enough for you to state that CPC16 is a far superior golf hole?  And if so, why?

TH

ps to Mike - you know how this goes - one has Mucci on the ropes so infrequently, it is difficult to give up the opportunity.  Of course one also has zero expectations he'll ever give in, but the lengths of issue avoidance and fact changing he'll go to in that effort remains great fun.    As for PB old and new, well you know my take if you've read this thread.  But it not, let's just say having played the old hole many times and the new hole twice, I find your take to be WILDLY divergent from mine.  In a nutshell, the old hole was only memorable because it sucked so bad; the new hole is fun and beautiful and is pretty unforgettable except by those who seek out awful golf holes.  And I'll leave it at that.  

[Kalen Braley]

I just want to re-iterate what Tom has said here and add a few things myself.

The layup to the left is argurably more difficult on the hole at Delta View because of the water right and a OB fence left. At CPC you have all the room in the world to lay up to. What makes this even more difficult is that the closer you get to the green, the tighter this area is because you fence pinches in.

As far as missing the green right, this is not very likely because the bank runs fairly steep into the water.  I've never seen anyone miss that green right and stay dry.  

And yes it is mounded behind the green and as the rough is usually up, that is nowhere that you want to be.  A tough chip downhill to a green sloping away from you awaits and it can roll into the water.

As far as lost ball potential or OB, when going for the green, the fence to the left is very much in play, which would be worse than if you had just gone into the hazard.

While the front of the green is not shaved down ala the 12th at Augusta National, it is steep enough where I've seen at least 1 ball hit that bank short and roll back in the drink.

As to the winds, they do rip pretty good out there making an already difficult shot, just plain brutal.

As to my personal opinion, I wouldn't even begin to put a 80 yard carry over water, as is necessary at CPC 16 to go to the left, in the same ball park as a 200+ yard carry.  They are two completely different animals in terms of intimidation and % of successful shot execution.  So while that is a difference between those two holes, it means little to the overall strategy of the hole and the difficulty in playing it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:

Great stuff, and more evidence for the Magician of the East.

Just don't expect him to focus on the similarities in playing the two holes or the degrees of difficulty in each.. the tiny differences will be all he cares about.  

What will it take to get him to admit the REAL substantive differences though?

I'm thinking earthquake, fire, flood, psychological counseling....

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom & Kalen,

I'll respond to your posts when I have a little more time.

Tom Huckaby,

Your methodology is a little like Tom MacWoods.

You draw a conclusion first, and then try to force selective info to prove your conclusion, rather than collecting the info and then drawing a conclusion.

The two holes are radically different, in topography, configuration and playability.

One look at Google Earth clearly reveals the substantive dissimilarities in the two holes.

Like our buddy David Moriarty, you're trying to force an oversized square peg in a round hole.  You just don't have a big enough hammer or a strong enough square peg.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

I am well aware of the tactic; I just don't think I'm using it in this case.  I have drawn no conclusions; I am just asking you what seem to be very fair questions.

But we can skip the BS if you like.  

The two holes are different for sure; just not very much in how they PLAY.   They truly are quite similar in what you now call "playability" - and Kalen and I have described why that is so.

They are obviously different in topography; slightly different in configuration.

So once again, why is CPC 16 great, and this Delta View hole never cited by anyone as anything other than difficult?

And I know it's like pulling teeth, but if you're a fair man you'll give an honest answer to this question, one the whole world knows, but you are so loath to admit, as it shoots a hole in one of your long-held positions.

And that won't matter, my friend, as that position has more holes than Swiss cheese as it is!

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Me thinks its as my momma always said:

"Location, location, location."  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Would you show me where there's a forced carry on the bail out shot at Delta ?

Would you show me the 100 yards of fairway in front of the 16th tees at CPC ?

Would you show me the expansive fairway and rough area to the left on the shot at Delta ?

Would you show me the green surrounded by bunkers at Delta ?

You can't, because they don't exist.

To say that these holes look and play alike is not being realistic given the terrain and relationship of the features.

Kalen,

Since you posted the Google aerial of the hole at Delta can you repost it, and beneath it, post the aerial of the 16th at CPC so that everyone can see the absurdity of trying to state that the hole at Delta is a reasonable template of the hole at CPC.

Thanks

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Again you miss the point.  Kalen and I are saying that what you call the "playability" of the two holes is quite similar.  And it is.  I say this having played both golf holes.  Will you please report how you played each?

In any case to your questions:

1. Would you show me where there's a forced carry on the bail out shot at Delta ?
It's right there in the picture - to get to the largest layup point, one does cross water.

2. Would you show me the 100 yards of fairway in front of the 16th tees at CPC ?
Doesn't exist, obviously.  And it's only 80 yards at Delta View.  But I granted this is one of the differences.

3. Would you show me the expansive fairway and rough area to the left on the shot at Delta ?
Not sure what you mean by "expansive fairway" - CPC doesn't have that either.  But the rough at DV is beneath the trees, along the fence - and this is shown on Google earth quite clearly.  And in any case the similarity here is that in both holes have pretty big lost ball potential going left, in each case the closer one gets to the green, the greater the lost ball potential on the left.

4.  Would you show me the green surrounded by bunkers at Delta ?
I granted already that the DV hole has only one bunker.  

So my question to you does remain.  Why is CPC a great hole and the DV hole not known for anything beyond pure difficulty?  Is it really these differences you cite and ONLY such?

BTW, we never said the two holes LOOK alike.  We said they PLAY alike.  But if looking alike has become important to you, well then EUREKA!  Progress is being made.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()