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

[TEPaul]

"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."

Well, of course Mackenzie said Hollins showed that shot to Raynor and not him but he was lying threw his teeth. What do you expect Mackenzie to say? In one instance Hollins totally trumped him design-wise thereby creating one of the most famous holes in the world and simultaneously putting a proverbial skirt on Alister for not thinking it was doable. What do you expect him to say other than she showed that shot to Raynor. Furthermore Raynor was dead and for that reason alone was unlikely to deny it.  

No, seriously, the story that she shot-tested #16 for Raynor and not Mackenzie probably is true. When Mackenzie wanted to do some distance shot testing out there he had a young guy who was the son of one of the big-timers who did that stuff for him. The guys name was Lapham, I believe and apparently he could really hit it long.

Kalen:

Once again, congratulations for recognizing such an apparently neat iteration. Nevertheless, it is heresy and despite your great iteration idea, THIS IS, after-all, the great par 3 16th at Cypress and so now you pretty much need to go straight to hell for the heresy of your very thought!


"i.e. where did he want to put the tee and the green?"

He apparently wanted to put the tees somewhere along the walk from the 15th. It's all in GeoffShac's Cypress book. He was also quite pissed he couldn't put the 14th hole along the coast. And then Morse shot him down again on the 18th. When Morse shot him down on the 18th apparently Mackenzie said to Morse in frustration: "OK, you dumb shit, then  I'm going to design an 18th hole with bunkers on the right surrounded by trees where nobody can figure out where they're supposed to hit the tee shot."

[Sean_A]

"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!

TomP

I reckon you are not following me, but that doesn't mean I'm not nuts. 

Please explain how an archie can exploit par.  If what you say is true it doesn't matter what type of hole a par 4 is - golfers will try to reach it in two shots.  So how can an archie alter the thinking of golfers in relation to par other than to create holes in which most players would not go for the green in two on a par 4? 

I don't believe archies can exploit par.  How players' treat par is up to themselves and I see guys using their handicap to great advantage in terms of not going for risky shots an awful lot.  I also see them throw caution to the wind and go for stuff they have no business attempting.  It all depends on the player and the game.  You are stuck in thinking in terms of decent players in a medal round which isn't a safe assumption. 

All an archie can do offer the dangerous route as a choice.  It is up to players to check their egos (or whatever) or not.  Of course, many will fall for the sucker play - including myself.  For me, that has nothing to do with par and everything to do with having fun.  I can't imagine laying up on a famous risk/reward hole unless circumstances (weather for instance) made me believe I can't pull the shot off.   

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"I don't believe archies can exploit par."

Sean:

Fine, in that case just go on thinking that. As long as you're having a good time what does it matter anyway?

But in my mind if an architect can get into golfers' heads to do things on a hole that they generally wouldn't do if the hole was just the same but another par, the architect has exploited par.   

[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.

What book did you read?

It's from The Spirit of St. Andrews, IIRC.

[Bob_Huntley]

If I hear anymore nonsense about improving the 16th at Cypress, I am going to issue a fatwah against the unbeliever. And there will be no 72 virgins in Valhalla.

Bob

[TEPaul]

How about 18 virgins Bob? That's enough for me as long as most of them look like Katherine Ross in The Graduate. 

[Sean_A]

"I don't believe archies can exploit par."

Sean:

Fine, in that case just go on thinking that. As long as you're having a good time what does it matter anyway?

But in my mind if an architect can get into golfers' heads to do things on a hole that they generally wouldn't do if the hole was just the same but another par, the architect has exploited par.   

Tom

Right, just like the golf course can be competed against.  Maybe in your head, but I have yet to see a golf course win a trophy! 

So the archie does something to the hole to muck with golfers' perceptions such as creating a par 4 that can be driven.  I don't see how the archie mucks with par.  You need to come up with a better way to explain what you mean becasue saying that the archie messes with par ain't getting it. 

Ciao

[Mike_Clayton]

Pete,

I did play the hole from half way down the part to the tee - I think it was about there - and it was really fun. You had a choice of how much of the cliff you took on but because the green is quite big the pitch wasn't too hard.

It is obviously a great par three but an alternate tee would make for a terrific alternative hole that could be played for fun - as they would at 7 and 11 at LACC which,I understand,was a part of the Thomas plan.

His course within a course idea was a great one.

[Mike Benham]

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.

Oh my ...

As I am assuming you have never played CPC, please mark these words as I want you to review them after you have played the 16th ...

[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.

Oh my ...

As I am assuming you have never played CPC, please mark these words as I want you to review them after you have played the 16th ...

Mike,

I know you have played it before, but c'mon, everything you need to know about a hole can all be deciphered from an aerial right?   

It all looked so great from above, I guess I shouldn't quit my day job ....

[Mark Smolens]

"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."

Our Olympia members can correct me since I haven't been there for a couple of years, but isn't the blue tee on #18 at Olympia Fields located on the front of the tee box, making the hole a very tough par-4, while the white tee is on the back of the box, making it a par-5?

[Bob_Huntley]

How about 18 virgins Bob? That's enough for me as long as most of them look like Katherine Ross in The Graduate. 

Tom,

There is a superb article in the current issue of 'Vanity Fair' on the making of The Graduate. It's a must read.

Bob

[Joel_Stewart]

I forgot about this thread and saw this picture.   I think it would have made a nice par 4.

[Marty Bonnar]

I always thought two back-to-back par 5s with a shared LZ would go well here - with a short, brutish and ugly uphill par 3 to follow maybe



Oh YES!
FBD.

[Joel_Stewart]

Martin:

That is sweet.  What software do you use to do that?

Joel

[rchesnut]

I just checked 3 books -- The Pasatiempo Story, The Spirit of St. Andrews and the Shackelford book on Cypress Point.  From the passages in those books, it's not entirely clear whether Marion Hollins made the suggestion to directly to Raynor.  She definitely suggested it to MacKenzie.

Clearly, she suggested it to MacKenzie after Raynor's death, since MacKenzie credits her with the design of the hole.  MacKenzie was weighing #16 as a possible par 4 right up until the club opened.  In the Pasatiempo Story by Margaret Koch, it says that MacKenzie asked for her view on the issue, and that at MacKenzie's request Marion hit a shot from trial Par 3 tee that landed on the green.  No mention is made of Raynor in this passage.

In the Spirit of St. Andrews, MacKenzie states:

"It was suggested to her [Marion] by the late Seth Raynor that it was a pity the carry over the ocean was too long to enable a hole to be designed on this particular site.  Miss Hollins said she did not think it was an impossible carry.  She then teed up a ball and drove to the middle of the site for the suggested green." 

The Shackelford book simply copies this passage.

[David Stamm]

I always thought two back-to-back par 5s with a shared LZ would go well here - with a short, brutish and ugly uphill par 3 to follow maybe



Oh YES!
FBD.

Crikey, Martin! That green is scary!

[David Stamm]

And to answer the original thread question, no. Whatever the par is the temptation to go for the green would've proved irresistable to most anyway. Hollins deserves the full credit AM bestowed on her for the idea.

[Bill_McBride]

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! 

There are lots of pictures of Dr MacKenzie in a skirt! 

[David Stamm]

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! 

There are lots of pictures of Dr MacKenzie in a skirt! 

Easy, now.

[John Moore II]

I have certainly never played CPC (however, if anyone wants to invite me to play, I'll be there in short order) but I think the IDEA of a par 4 at 16 is a fair idea. The format Kalen used would certainly be an excellent hole, as good, I feel, as the current hole. Frankly, its hard to screw up something on as good a piece of ground as that, if you do something bad there in design, you need to quit. Should the hole be changed? Certainly not. But it sure makes good talk to think about it.

[Pete Lavallee]

In the Spirit of St. Andrews, MacKenzie states:

"It was suggested to her [Marion] by the late Seth Raynor that it was a pity the carry over the ocean was too long to enable a hole to be designed on this particular site.  Miss Hollins said she did not think it was an impossible carry.  She then teed up a ball and drove to the middle of the site for the suggested green." 

The Shackelford book simply copies this passage.

rc,

Isnt this passage proof that Marion displayed the shot to Seth Rayor and not The Good Dr.?

[rchesnut]

Not necessarily Pete.  The passage isn't clear on who Marion was speaking to when she said it was not an impossible carry, and what the exact circumstances were surrounding her famous shot.   It's quite possible that Raynor made his statement to Marion, who thought about it and then expressed her opinion on the issue to MacKenzie.  That would make sense for a number of reasons...MacKenzie originally designed 16 as a par 4, and kept open the possibility that 16 would be a par 4 right until the end.  MacKenzie trusted Hollins and listened to her opinion on golf architecture.  Further, in the Pasatiempo Story by Margaret Koch, Ms. Koch states that Ms. Hollins made her sugggestion to MacKenzie, and hit the shot at MacKenzie's request.

Even if she did make the suggestion to Raynor, it apparently didn't sway him.  MacKenzie was originally planning on 16 as a par 4...so it actually  makes more sense if Marion made the suggestion to him rather than Raynor.

[JohnV]

"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."

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!

The USGA does it almost every year changing a par 5 to a par 4 and getting in the heads of the players at the US Open.

I've played Cypress 3 times since I got here with a total of 9 players including myself.  I've only seen 2 players who didn't give it a go and both of them knew they couldn't make the carry.  Everyone certainly tries it if they think they can.  If they don't, they'll layup.  Make it a par 4 and the percentage would drop from 100% of those who think they can do it, but it would still be pretty high, if only for the thrill of pulling off that shot.  But, make it a tournament where they have to post a score and a lot more would layup.

[Pete Lavallee]

Not necessarily Pete.  The passage isn't clear on who Marion was speaking to when she said it was not an impossible carry, and what the exact circumstances were surrounding her famous shot.   

The name MacKenzie never appears in this passage but the name Raynor does. It is therefore very clear to me who she displayed the shot to. I find it very unlikely that MacKenzie would have given credit for the hole to Rayner if it was not indeed Seth who witnessed the shot; Mackenzie was not fond of giving credit to otheres unless credit was indeed due.