[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

If someone condemned me to play Seminole or CPC, to the exclusion of every other course, for the rest of my life, it would be hard to imagine not being supremely happy and content while at the same time being adequately challenged.

And, if Tom Huckaby were in my group, I'm sure he'd be enraptured by the vistas, not to mention the prevailing winds

[Jim Nugent]

I wonder how many other touring pro's agree with Michael's friend about Seminole and CPC? 

[Matt Day]

I've only had the opportunity to walk CPC, but it still ranks number one for the most enjoyable 4 hours I've ever spent on a golf course.

We were like kids in a lolly shop, must have taken 200 plus photos and it was a privilege to have had that opportunity.

 

[Mark Chaplin]

Now MW's friend is a major winner one wonders whether that strengthens his viewpoint to the wider GCA audience??

[Kevin Pallier]

JC

An interesting thread resurrection....having only seen 1/2 of the equation I can't comment on the Ross connection.

That said - Mackenzie provides more than a golf course at Cypress he provides an education in design across the cliffs / dunes and woodlands.

[Matt MacIver]

It would be interesting to get his updated views given two more years experience in golf, life and gca study.  Wonder how he likes The Old Course - a pretty easy test for the pros when the wind is down and very wide open, but certainly the "shot values" are there. 

[Andy Troeger]

Correct me if I am wrong--and I am sure this group will --but I think Mackenzie said something about a course being enjoyable for golfers of all skill levels...in my opinion this should include scratch or plus-handicaps AS WELL as the 36 HCP...even among Mackenzie's work in California, I do not think Cypress as a golf coursewould rate nearly as high as Pasatiempo on that criterion. 

This is an interesting point--whether or not Dr. MacKenzie said it. I would agree that Pasatiempo might be one of the best examples I've ever seen of a course that challenges the better player without overly burdening the weaker one. At the same time I think Cypress does a pretty darn good job of that as well. David, you mentioned Oakmont being in your top 2-3 and it sounds like you must be a strong player; I would argue that Cypress does a better job of being enjoyable for all levels than a course as difficult as Oakmont*.  I can see there being two sides to the quandary, but it seems the question is whether it would be more enjoyable for the plus handicap to have a shot at a low number or for the high handicap to challege their game to the maximum. Generally, I think too many designers err on the side of excess difficulty, when the vast majority of golfers might enjoy something a bit more forgiving. Even as a single-digit handicap, my game can only take so much! Obviously there's an exception for courses used to hold major championships, but many of the new brutally difficult courses being built today won't ever host one.

*--I have not played Oakmont and am using it as an example of an exceedingly difficult golf course because it was also in your earlier post. But, I've never heard anyone claim that Oakmont was anything other than really tough so I think it is a reasonable example of my point.

[Chip Gaskins]

The main point I take away from this, is that it is a myth that you can design a golf course that is "enjoyable" for a tour/plus player and a 36 handicapper. 

The definition of enjoyable is so different for those polar opposite ends of the spectrum.  The mind set of a tour/plus player is to always want the lowest possible score and by default probably hits it a mile and renders these shorter "great courses" (Cypress, Merion, etc) to driver-wedge affairs and thus that player thinks the course is "too easy" and therefore not great (like Oakmont, Shinnecock, etc).  Where as the 36 handicap utterly adores these short great courses.  I just don't see how you span the gap to be enjoyable for all skill levels when the definition of enjoyable is so different for the two ends of the spectrum.

I don't think Cypress is overrated (I haven't played Seminole) at all, but I think Shinnecock, Pine Valley, and Royal County Down are just better because you have to hit 3 irons.

[JMEvensky]

The main point I take away from this, is that it is a myth that you can design a golf course that is "enjoyable" for a tour/plus player and a 36 handicapper. 

The only change I'd make is lowering your 36 to maybe 12.Tour/plus players are playing a completely different game of golf.There just aren't many common denominators between the 2 groups.

[Sean Leary]

Pat Mucci at his cantankerous best in this thread.

I have a friend who is a high level national Mid Am type player who felt the exact same way about CPC. Shot 68 the 1 time he played it. Liked it, but thought it was the most overrated course he had ever played, and unlike Mike's friend, is not a long player at all. Much preferred The Preserve, which will give most on this site heart pains.

Most of his golf is tournament golf, and he is the type of player that excels when Par is a good score. So that is what he likes. Loves Spyglass, loves Olympic. Views courses based in great part on shots that the course makes him hit, not Joe 12 handicap. Myopic, for sure. Wrong, maybe, but it's a big world..

[George Pazin]

It's not that big...

[Scott Szabo]

If someone condemned me to play Seminole or CPC, to the exclusion of every other course, for the rest of my life, it would be hard to imagine not being supremely happy and content while at the same time being adequately challenged.

And, if Tom Huckaby were in my group, I'm sure he'd be enraptured by the vistas, not to mention the prevailing winds

Imagine my surprise, when reading about Seminole & Cypress Point, being reminded of the prevailing winds at Sand Hills.,,,,, 

[Sean Leary]

It's not that big...

  LOL.

I agree George. But sometimes we forget how many people don't look at courses the way that many of us do on here. Also, opinions of those who may have played a great course only once. I have two other low handicapper friends that  played at Merion. Loved the course, but thought the middle holes (7-13) were just OK. If they played there, say 5 times or more, I can guarantee that there would be a greater appreciation for those holes..

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

The problem your tourney bud has is that he shoots a low number on a GIVEN day and then believes such a course -- when he shoot a low number -- is really no big deal and speaks less of the course in question.

The issue would be a return visit with pins tucked and possibly even the wind blowing a bit and then you see the whole nature of the design is about.

One time visits -- especially where low handicap types may shoot low -- tend to create the wide gulf in thinking that can often emerge.

Let me point point out that sometimes low handicap types may catch a course when the opposite wind is blowing and as a result may catch certain holes in certain ways for that GIVEN day and it may not reflect what the architect was thinking when prevailing wind patterns are present. The case in example for me that I just referenced was my visit to The Rawls Course when a freak northeast wind was blowing.

[Sean Leary]

Sean:

The problem your tourney bud has is that he shoots a low number on a GIVEN day and then believes such a course -- when he shoot a low number -- is really no big deal and speaks less of the course in question.

The issue would be a return visit with pins tucked and possibly even the wind blowing a bit and then you see the whole nature of the design is about.

One time visits -- especially where low handicap types may shoot low -- tend to create the wide gulf in thinking that can often emerge.

Let me point point out that sometimes low handicap types may catch a course when the opposite wind is blowing and as a result may catch certain holes in certain ways for that GIVEN day and it may not reflect what the architect was thinking when prevailing wind patterns are present. The case in example for me that I just referenced was my visit to The Rawls Course when a freak northeast wind was blowing.

Gulp. I actually agree with everything you say. Don't tell anybody..

 

[Tom_Doak]

I've not read back through all seven pages, but one of the factors in this discussion that wasn't discussed much is that Cypress Point is one of the very few classic courses which has resisted the idea of adding back tees for Tour pros.  Merion, Shinnecock, and National have all succumbed ... but the Tour pro is still playing Cypress at 6,500 yards, just a couple of steps behind where the rest of us play.  Crystal Downs is one of the few others I can think of which falls into that category.

Some will see this as a weakness, others as a strength; but it is mostly a comment on the widening gulf between Tour pros and normal players as the result of equipment changes.  Hogan and Snead and Venturi found Cypress Point to be a classic; Nicklaus and Watson not as much; today's pros even less.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

The issue for many top tier players is that score is the ULTIMATE ingredient for them in determining what makes a course so great.

Unfortunately, when many top tier players play a CP they often see it when it plays much slower than it can be. You also have a situation whereby the facility doesn't seek to speed up the firmness beyond a certain point.

Tom, let me point out a NJ example of a comparable sorts to CP.

I've played Somerset Hills when it plays very slow and frankly it's just a very simple and predictable course when it plays that way. Totally unremarable in so many ways.

However ...

Have them firm up the place and now any one-foot putt is not an automatic.

Like I said at the outset the mindset of many top tier players is often not very deep in their overall thinking in terms of architectural elements that lie beyond the score mentality that far too often dominates their feelings about ANY course.

One other thing -- I've always believed that for any course to be considered GREAT it needs to succumb to the time when a player does play exceptionally well. Courses that fail to yield a low round to such actions are then, in my mind, just unreasonable in terms of what design should be about.

[JC Jones]

After playing Palmetto this fall, it makes sense that this tour pro would like it more than CP because the course plays much longer than its yardage, due to the majority of the approach shots being up hill.

[Rick Shefchik]

Let me point out a NJ example of a comparable sorts to CP.

I've played Somerset Hills when it plays very slow and frankly it's just a very simple and predictable course when it plays that way. Totally unremarable in so many ways.

However ...

Have them firm up the place and now any one-foot putt is not an automatic.

Matt,
I can understand a course rising in esteem when firmed up, but it would have to affect every shot -- rolling drives through the fairway and into the rough, or rejecting mediocre shot to the green, etc. While I'm sure you weren't implying that speeding up the greens alone is enough to elevate a course's reputation, I'd almost view that as a negative -- endless putting from inside three feet doesn't float my boat. 

[Matt_Ward]

Rick:

The speed of the course is from all elements together -- the amount of roll from a tee shot -- the firmness of the greens to approaches and then to the actual speed of the greens themselves.

I've played CP and SH when less than fast and it's clear they are easy marks for the top tier players but expose these same players to conditions that are 180 degrees different and the opinions do change.

The sad reality is that too many courses play way too slow and when you have short distances involved from say under 6,600 yards it's e-z for the highly skilled player to believe such layouts are way too e-z when the reality is that the overall slowness of the turf serves to minimize the architectural elements that are already present.

[David Lott]

Someone invite me to play and I'll give my opinion. Available on short notice.

[Chuck Brown]

Both courses are very short for a Tour player.  Heck, Claude Harmon shot 60 at Seminole nearly 50 years ago!  And I think most Tour players would tell you that Cypress Point is no longer relevant for them.

The question is how much that has to do with whether or not they are great golf courses.  A young Tour player is obviously biased in this regard, but he represents 0.001% of the golfing population.  For 98% Cypress Point would be one of the 5-10 best courses in he world.  It's really just an argument about how much importance we should attach to the other two percent.

I'd like to know which six holes are so bad at Cypress Point, though.  Is he downgrading #5 and #6 because they're easily reachable?  I can't count to six bad holes there.  Maybe he confused it with Pebble Beach.

Well, I was just about to type all of the above, with trembling hands after reading the OP.  But Tom Doak beat me to it.  Like he said...

[Michael Whitaker]

Now MW's friend is a major winner one wonders whether that strengthens his viewpoint to the wider GCA audience??

Mark - You've pegged the wrong pro. Lucas, while a good friend, was not the one who shared his thoughts with me about these courses.

[Sean_A]

This debate hinges on what must be an age old question; is greatness determined by the elite players or the punters?  It seems to me that the opinions of both groups is more and more difficult to reconcile.  That is if it ever was the case.  I spose I am wondering how well these great classic really did accomodate all levels of players.  Is it merely a myth?  Perhaps far fewer accomplished this ideal status than we imagine.  Looking at the scores of golden age comps would seem to suggest that the classic courses were damn difficult for pros so they must have been oh so difficult for the handicap player.  So I reckon the question revolves around the idea of the high capper being able to get around quickly with some pride in place.  I have long believed that the American courses of stature built in the 20s & 30s must have been monsters for the club player.  Somewhere along the line expectations have shifted. 

Perhaps it is time again to shift expecations for the best players and create a new pro par while at the same time revert back to a more generous par (something like the old bogey score) for the club player.  I think the gap is that large to justify it and perhaps this will help stop the feeling that courses need to be toughened up.  Of course, the low cappers would hate this idea because they would fall somewhere inbetween, but in truth, that is where they are now only it isn't spoken of much.

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

Michael,

Apollogies to LG and yourself....you clearly mix with the best!

Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()