Should Mackenzie have stuck to his guns on the 16th at Cypress Point?

[Jason Topp]

I understand that Mackenzie originally wanted the 16th to be a par four but Marion Hollins convinced him otherwise by hitting a ball from the present tee to the present green.

In his write up, Ran describes the hole as the best in the world.

My guess is that if it were designed today, many would create a short driveable par four.  Would the hole be better or worse with such a change?

I've never played the hole.   Would the decision to go for or not be more difficult with some extra yards.  If so, how many yards would be needed?

[Philippe Binette]

Haven't played it but

Let's say it was a 290 par 4...
only 5% of players could attemp the dramatic shot over water at the green
of this number 10% would go for it,

meaning that 0,5% would try the shot...

the hole would become a 6-iron lay-up wedge... it wouldn't be that great...

the risk would be too high to go at the green from 290...


good call Mrs Hollins

[Ally Mcintosh]

without having played the course, the only differences i can see it making are that it would become suicide to try and drive the green directly but would not stop people trying... the hole would become less playable...

...and the tee location would not be quite as dramatic (i'm guessing)...

...both of which seem negative to me...

can't think of any positives... there wouldn't even be a massive advantage from driving tight to the ocean so the strategic element might not be there... that said, i've no idea what the approach to the green from that side is like so i'm just speculating...

[JESII]

Philippe,

Wondering where you came up with the 5% and 10% numbers...really just the 10% number?

I would bet 99% of the people that think they can reach go for the green.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jason,

Seems to me, a MAJORITY of golfers face the "short par-4 dilemma" you describe, at Cypress Point's 16th hole -- to go for it or not? -- at its current yardage.  

I don't think we should judge the merits of this particular hole -- and many other "half par" holes -- in relation to par. At its current yardage, Cypress' 16th presents a dilemma for MORE golfers than if it had another, say, 10-20 yards tacked on. In this case, TOO MANY golfers would simply lay-up to the fairway. And thus, the hole wouldn't be as exciting for as many golfers as we find it today.

As Philippe points out above, a mid-iron lay-up followed by a wedge shot to the green, for a MAJORITY of golfers, is comparatively dull.

[Brent Hutto]

I think the proportions suit the hole perfectly. Not that it wouldn't be possible to design it 40, 50, 60 yards longer and somewhat come up with a different geometry perfect for that distance but it would be a tricky thing.

It's not just the stright-line carry distance that has to be a) sufficient to be risky yet b) short enough to not be suicidal for 99% of of players. That is one necessary but not sufficient condition for the hole's IMHO perfection. There is also the difficulty created by a half-assed cheat toward the front/short apron of the green in which the ball will find it's way into the dropoff over the far edge of the "fairway". Especially with a right-to-left breeze that angle is probably a harder thing to judge than any other angle you might try and yet the carry is still substantial.

And then there's the true layup option. The way it played the day I was there you still had to judge a downwind layup shot to put the ball in the short grass. And that left longer than a punched wedge but short enough to be a shot that anyone can execute with a potentially high degree of precision to have a putt at par. A longer version of the hole might end up with more of a Cape-like layup option rather than what I recall as more of a straight-sideways layup. There would be some temptation in designing a "drivable Par 4" length hole to complicate or otherwise overdesign the first shot for the vast majority of players who would no longer have even a fool's chance of attacking the green directly.

So my point is, you'd end up with a very differently playing hole (given that the peninsula is what it is which constrains the geometry) and I'd have to see that design executed well to believe that it could be anything like as "perfect" as the hole that exists.

[Sean_A]

Jason,

Seems to me, a MAJORITY of golfers face the "short par-4 dilemma" you describe, at Cypress Point's 16th hole -- to go for it or not? -- at its current yardage. 

I don't think we should judge the merits of this particular hole -- and many other "half par" holes -- in relation to par. At its current yardage, Cypress' 16th presents a dilemma for MORE golfers than if it had another, say, 10-20 yards tacked on. In this case, TOO MANY golfers would simply lay-up to the fairway. And thus, the hole wouldn't be as exciting for as many golfers as we find it today.

As Philippe points out above, a mid-iron lay-up followed by a wedge shot to the green, for a MAJORITY of golfers, is comparatively dull.

Jeff is right.  Par on this sort of hole is meaningless.  The options to execute are what is relevant. 

I am not sure if this idea would work so well, but I often think many short par 5s should be made into par 4s from the front of the tee box for comps and remain at the back of the tee box for daily play.  To me it doesn't make any difference, but it might help stop clubs from lengthening the course when it is often be easier to reduce par. 

In the case of CP, perhaps the same tack should be taken to try and satisfy all or more people.  It could be that perhaps the front tees should be the medal tees as a par 3 and the back tees (if they go back far enough) are the daily tees as a par 4 - OR vice versa if the club doesn't hold many comps.  Though for the life of me I don't know how one can't be satisfied with the 16th par be damned.

Ciao

[Jeff_Mingay]

Sean,

Here's an interesting example of how par affects a golfer's thinking:

The 13th hole at my home course (Essex G&CC, D. Ross, 1929) is currently a 471-yard par-5.

Currently most average golfers at the club (I'd say, 10 handicap and above) simply play this hole as a three-shotter to the green. There's talk of calling this hole a par-4. If this happens, all of a sudden, many of the same golfers -- who shouldn't change their current strategy -- will undoubtedly begin to think they need to reach the green with two shots, because it's called "par-4".

Terminology immediately makes the hole more difficult for these (psyched-out) golfers because they'll be trying for the green with their second shots... the putting surface here is angled and significantly elevated, surrounded by difficult rough, and there's water and bunkers nearby.

Good players, on the other hand, typically play a long-to- mid iron to the green at the 13th hole. With regard to strategy, this hole remains the same for low-handicappers (long hitters), no matter what you call it.

[TEPaul]

"My guess is that if it were designed today, many would create a short driveable par four.  Would the hole be better or worse with such a change?"

Jason:

Just the question itself is pure heresy!

That is one of those holes in the world that's just untouchable as what it is and has always been, no matter how anyone looks at the way it plays!

Furthermore, just the way that hole came to be what it is via Marion Hollins (and her apparent testing of the tee shot) is one of the best design/architecture decision stories in the history of architecture.

Matter of fact, someone was telling me the other day that a whole lot more needs to be known about Marion Hollins or else what is known about her needs  to be made way more available. If you look at what she was and what she did in golf and architecture it's just pretty damn remarkable.

I think the 16th at Cypress Point should be named after her if it hasn't already been! She deserves at least that at Cypress!

Matter of fact, I think a portrait should be done and hung at Cypress showing Marion on the tee in pants and Alister next to her on the tee in a skirt! 

[Mike Benham]

As the carry from the current tee box is only 200 yards, how short would this par 4 be?

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Here's an interesting example of how par affects a golfer's thinking:

The 13th hole at my home course (Essex G&CC, D. Ross, 1929) is currently a 471-yard par-5.

Currently most average golfers at the club (I'd say, 10 handicap and above) simply play this hole as a three-shotter to the green. There's talk of calling this hole a par-4. If this happens, all of a sudden, many of the same golfers -- who shouldn't change their current strategy -- will undoubtedly begin to think they need to reach the green with two shots, because it's called "par-4".

Terminology immediately makes the hole more difficult for these (psyched-out) golfers because they'll be trying for the green with their second shots... the putting surface here is angled and significantly elevated, surrounded by difficult rough, and there's water and bunkers nearby.

Good players, on the other hand, typically play a long-to- mid iron to the green at the 13th hole. With regard to strategy, this hole remains the same for low-handicappers (long hitters), no matter what you call it.

Jeff

I know guys fall for that par nonsense, but I say these guys are playing the card not the course.  There is no reason why archies should feel a need to pander to that sort of logic.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"I know guys fall for that par nonsense, but I say these guys are playing the card not the course.  There is no reason why archies should feel a need to pander to that sort of logic."

Sean:

If I'm understanding you correctly, as usual, you're nuts.

Architects should exploit golfers who play golf holes in some scorecard sense every single chance they get.

I've seen some marvelous results from guys like Doak and Coore and Crenshaw exploiting the dumb scorecard mentality relating to par distance, and the interesting thing is they've done it really well both ways!

[Kalen Braley]

As TomP says, this is heresy...but seeing how we've opened this can of worms and we're all going to hell now, I've often wondered about alternate ways to place a hole here.  I've included the following par 4 for your consideration.

This includes utilizing the piece of land just north of the 16th green.  To turn this into an all world par 4, the tee box would be moved back up the hillside to where the red dot currently is, and the green would be moved to where the new green is shown.

From here it would be a 270-280 yard carry to the green if one wanted to go at the green in 1.  With water short, left, and right there is plenty of risk to make one think twice about doing this, yet still reachable enough for a longer hitter to maybe try.  From this tee, its a 175 yard carry to the currently existing fairway where the cypress tree is.  With a successful tee shot, it would then be an all-word knee-kocking short iron into the green.

The current tee could be left in place as the womens tee and to accomadate shorter hitters who would have a tough time with the 175 yard carry.

And before people dismiss this due to erosion concerns, based on photos I've seen its appears they have done plenty to keep the current 16th and 17th greens from falling into the ocean.

Edit:  After looking at this further, if a tee box is placed behind the new 16th green, you could add 60 yards to the 17th hole to combat against the JB Holmes of the world!! 

[Pete Lavallee]

I recall Mike Clayton saying he tried it out as a par 4 on one of his visits, hitting a 2 iron from somewhere near the 15th green to the layup area.

Also Marion Hollins displayed the shot across the bay to the proposed green site to Seth Raynor, not the Good Doctor. He even says so much in his book.

[TEPaul]

Kalen:

Just so long as noone thinks it's a serious recommendation, I think with the various characteristics of the landforms there your recommendation would make just an unbelievably cool multi-optional short par 4.

Actually I wouldn't mind seeing them do your hole right around the present  par 3 and make the hole play as an optional par 3 or par 4. The point is you don't need to touch the present hole in any way. Only problem might be if someone playing the par 4 iteration ended up on the par 3 green but the Rules cover that one too.  

[Garland Bayley]

I recall Mike Clayton saying he tried it out as a par 4 on one of his visits, hitting a 2 iron from somewhere near the 15th green to the layup area.

Also Marion Hollins displayed the shot across the bay to the proposed green site to Seth Raynor, not the Good Doctor. He even says so much in his book.

What book did you read?

[Garland Bayley]

Kalen:

Just so long as noone thinks it's a serious recommendation, I think with the various characteristics of the landforms there your recommendation would make just an unbelievably cool multi-optional short par 4.

Actually I wouldn't mind seeing them do your hole right around the present  par 3 and make the hole play as an optional par 3 or par 4. The point is you don't need to touch the present hole in any way. Only problem might be if someone playing the par 4 iteration ended up on the par 3 green but the Rules cover that one too. 

I agree. However, don't kid yourself that your hole would be anything of the calibre of the present hole.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen:

Just so long as noone thinks it's a serious recommendation, I think with the various characteristics of the landforms there your recommendation would make just an unbelievably cool multi-optional short par 4.

Actually I wouldn't mind seeing them do your hole right around the present  par 3 and make the hole play as an optional par 3 or par 4. The point is you don't need to touch the present hole in any way. Only problem might be if someone playing the par 4 iteration ended up on the par 3 green but the Rules cover that one too.  

TomP,

Thanks for pointing that out, hadn't thought of it like that, but yes that works well.  And Dr. MacK can finally have some peace from the grave and know that his par 4, ( with some small differences), was finally built.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

You are right, it wouldn't be of the same calibre...it would be even better!!   

In all seriousness though, I think the new par 4 option would keep the shock and awe tee shot properties of that hole intact, and would add a wonderful new wrinkle with the all-world short iron approach into that new green.

And to boot if its playing into a strong headwind that day, they can turn it into a par 5?  How about that TomP, the worlds first par 3, 4, and 5, all wrapped into one, on arguably the most beautiful golf spot on the planet. 

[JMorgan]

I don't feel like starting another thread, but I've often wondered what if CP#16 was mirrored and showed left-hand preference, or favored a hook and not a slice?  Would it be a thrilling hole to the same degree as it is now? 

Has anyone in the group accidentally sliced into a miracle on the hole?  How did that feel? 

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

You are right, it wouldn't be of the same calibre...it would be even better!!   

In all seriousness though, I think the new par 4 option would keep the shock and awe tee shot properties of that hole intact, and would add a wonderful new wrinkle with the all-world short iron approach into that new green.

See, there you go again. Isn't that what I just warned you about. Wait until you get as old and knarled looking as me. Then you will see the error of your ways.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

You are right, it wouldn't be of the same calibre...it would be even better!!   

In all seriousness though, I think the new par 4 option would keep the shock and awe tee shot properties of that hole intact, and would add a wonderful new wrinkle with the all-world short iron approach into that new green.

See, there you go again. Isn't that what I just warned you about. Wait until you get as old and knarled looking as me. Then you will see the error of your ways.

Garland,

I'm certainly more than willing for you to point out specifically where the "error" of my ways are in this suggestion.  Never played it, but I have taken a few peaks from 17 mile drive and have google earth at my fingertips.   

[Jason Topp]

I wondered if it was Raynor.  I like the current title so I will not correct it.

On the current hole, how often does a single digit handicapper try and hit the green off the tee?  How often does he lay up?  Would it be ideal if that ratio was around 50/50, regardless of par?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I think par does make a difference in how some people view and play a hole.  Too say that it shouldn't is one thing so say that it doesn't is another.  I have played Cypress and if it were a par four I would want to go for the green even more, so I could make a birdie. 

I for one think it may be the most exciting hole in the world but really don't think it is the best.  I realize the lay up and second shot still are exciting but there are a lot of hole with the same option.  For most good players it is hit some kind of long iron or lofted wood, two putt and go on.  That doesn't mean it is not a great hole.  It just isn't the best.  When the wind blows it is another story. 

[Jim Nugent]

Does anyone know exactly how Mac wanted to route his par four?  i.e. where did he want to put the tee and the green?