News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Breaking with Convention at CPC
« Reply #25 on: November 29, 2007, 10:00:16 AM »
Although not "conventional" in terms of front versus back nines...but how about the routing at Lawsonia links which starts at hole #9 and goes 5-3-5-3-5-3...you gotta love it!!!

What's interesting about Langford's famous non-par-4 stretch at Lawsonia is that it melds with his thinking about golf in general, and in particular approach shots into green. Langford was a fairly prolific writer, and in one article for a golf publication he suggests he's more interested in varying the lengths and types of approach shots into greens than he is with conventional notions of par.

At Lawsonia, the stretch of non-par-4s begins on #9 with a 535-yard par 5 (short iron approach), a 239-yd par 3 (a fairway wood for most), a 498-yd par 5 (fairway wood for the better player, wedge/short iron for the rest), a 183-yd par 3 (mid-to-long iron), a 568-yd par 5 (with a severely uphill 3rd shot, even if it's a short iron), and a 154-yd par 3 (that is slightly downhill, perhaps a club less, and a short iron for most). (Lengths are from the tips of a 6,764-yard course, designed in 1930.)

Interestingly, this stretch is immediately preceded by another interesting array of holes that call for approach shots of: short-iron/wedge (#8, 339 par 4), mid-short iron (#7, the boxcar hole, 161 par 3), long iron (#6, 431 par 4, possibly shorter iron due to downhill LZ for fairway), fairway wood (#5, 487 par 5, with possible low-to-even-mid-iron 2nd shot if you really catch the downhill LZ), long-iron/fairway wood (#4, uphill, Redan-esque 203 par 3).

Combined, the 10-hole stretch provides tremendous variety in the clubs players will use to hit into greens -- for me, a real hallmark of a great course, and very much a deliberate part of Langford's routing and design scheme.

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Breaking with Convention at CPC
« Reply #26 on: November 29, 2007, 10:00:51 AM »
According to Mark Frost MacKenzie wanted 16 to be a par 4 but Marion Hollins insisted on making it a par 3.  I guess she didn't mind back-to-back par 3's.  

Tom Huckaby

Re:Breaking with Convention at CPC
« Reply #27 on: November 29, 2007, 10:47:14 AM »
Tom H:

I thought when we came up with the routing for Pacific Dunes that a lot of people would get stuck on the unusual scorecard and refuse to like it for that reason.  I guess I was wrong.

Everybody out there tells me that very few people comment on the unusual back-nine scorecard after playing it.  Mike Keiser has noted that he's had lots of people tell him excitedly that they played their best nine holes EVER on the back nine at Pacific Dunes; none of them have seemed to realize that having four par-3's and three par-5's in those nine holes probably helped a bit.  :)

That is a very happy outcome!

But again, I am not saying that people look NEGATIVELY on odd routings like this; I just do maintain that it gets noticed, in refutation of my friend Michael.  You know, something like "gee, did you realize the back nine has four par threes?".

I've yet to play with or talk to anyone who didn't make a comment like that, or agree with someone who said that to them, about PD.  To say it goes unnoticed just goes very against my experience... at PD, CPC, Rustic, basically any course that breaks from the mold of two par threes, two par fives, five par fours on a front or back nine.

But maybe I just play with particularly aware golfers.

That has me ROTFL....

TH

ps - Phil, I know you mean well, but using Mark Frost as an authority on anything having to do with CPC - when there are so many REAL authorities right here in this room - is like asking me to opine about Mark Twain.  In this case I think you're right (about 16) but citing him causes LOSS of credibility.   ;)

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Breaking with Convention at CPC
« Reply #28 on: November 29, 2007, 11:06:29 AM »
TH,

Who should I use as an authority in the future to restore my credibility?  Pat Mucci?  TPaul?

Tom Huckaby

Re:Breaking with Convention at CPC
« Reply #29 on: November 29, 2007, 11:16:16 AM »
TH,

Who should I use as an authority in the future to restore my credibility?  Pat Mucci?  TPaul?

LOL - well either of them would work depending on the context - each are certainly experts on certain things discussed in here.....

And I don't mean to be a prick about this.  It's just that with how much Frost has been roasted and toasted over historical inaccuracies in his books, well... he wouldn't be the one I chose as an authority.

Change that "Frost" to "Geoff Shackelford" or "Tom Doak" and all is right with the world.  

 ;D

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Breaking with Convention at CPC
« Reply #30 on: November 29, 2007, 12:52:02 PM »

I thought when we came up with the routing for Pacific Dunes that a lot of people would get stuck on the unusual scorecard and refuse to like it for that reason.  I guess I was wrong.



I suspect that one reason may be the links routing, no "at the turn" for golfers to consciously end their front nine and start the back nine.
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Breaking with Convention at CPC
« Reply #31 on: November 29, 2007, 01:04:38 PM »
Was MacKenzie following Raynor's routing at CPC or was it his own?

No one knows because nobody has seen the Raynor routing.

I find CPC routing more unbalanced than PD.  Like Pauls comment, I never knew Pacific Dunes was such until someone pointed it out.

Tom Huckaby

Re:Breaking with Convention at CPC
« Reply #32 on: November 29, 2007, 01:10:24 PM »
Joel:

Come on.  At PD, you really didn't notice playing two par threes in a row (10-11) and then two more par threes before the end of the round (14, 17)?  You took no note of the dearth of par fours on the back nine?

You must be one focused golfer.

 ;D

Again, I am not saying it's a bad thing - in fact I think it's pretty darn fun.  But to say it goes unnoticed... that I just have a hard time believing.

TH

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Breaking with Convention at CPC
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2007, 02:07:03 PM »
One of the good things about an "unconventional" routing is that it presents a chance to have a run of several good par-4's in a row somewhere, too.  6-7-8-9 at Pacific Dunes is a pretty good stretch of holes which really shows off the variety of the property.

Tom, I know you well enough to know we're not changing your thinking on the matter, but I swear I don't get many comments on the unusual routing at Pacific Dunes (outside of this board).  Some people do comment on the back-to-back par-3's, but I think the fact that those are near the turn and then the other par-3's are spaced three holes apart makes people less likely to put their brains around the whole thing.

There are certainly a lot of scorecard-watchers among players and critics (and clients) and I hate that aspect of the business with a passion.  When we walked the final routing of Pacific Dunes we hadn't written down the scorecard and nobody noticed the unusual sequence ... I only realized what it would be at lunch, and I wrote it out and put it under Mr. Keiser's nose and asked him if it bothered him.  And he said if I'd written it out beforehand, it probably would have, but we had just walked a great bunch of holes so it really didn't matter.

I really wish I could just leave a scorecard off every plan I draw, but somebody always asks.

Tom Huckaby

Re:Breaking with Convention at CPC
« Reply #34 on: November 29, 2007, 02:13:19 PM »
Tom:

Moi?  I am nothing if not malleable.

 ;D

And I think what we have here is a failure by me to communicate.  See, I don't doubt that as people play the course, they don't focus on the "odd" sequence.  But again, I have yet to meet anyone who fails to either comment on it or say something to the effect of "gee, you're right" when it's mentioned to them AFTER playing.

So it matters not to me when this notice occurs... but I continue to refuse to believe many golfers fail to take some notice of it.  It's just too weird not to.

Just remember one more thing:  I am not saying this in any negative context whatsoever.  In fact I for one believe at PD, it's one hell of a great positive.  I've never played a round there where I didn't greatly look forward to playing the "wacky" back nine.  And maybe it's me, but that has more to do with the great golf holes themselves, but also a lot to do with the odd sequence.  See, I love it!

TH