Vertical center-of-the-fairway obstacles - Forcing choices on the golfer ...

[Mike Benham]

Looking at these photos of the 17th at CPC, are these fairway splitting clump of trees, coupled with the dogleg of the hole,  the best type of obstacle to give the golfer grief with the choices from the tee?




If the hole was cut back right instead of middle left, this would not be a perfect drive ... with a back right hole location, would you still hit driver?   I probably wouldn't ...

[Tom Huckaby]

Great pics once again.

I would say in general hell yes, central hazards work wonders toward forcing choices to be made, which to me is a great thing.

As for this hole specifically, great point re the far right pin... if anything such pin not only would make driver an unwise play for all except the super-duper long, but also wouldn't it make the risky short right, hugging the coast option a little more tempting?

TH

[John Kavanaugh]

Looks to me that Cypress would have been better with a skyline green or two instead of all these flashed up bunker backstops.  Are they barriers from sea spray or just Mac being Mac?

[Tom Huckaby]

JK - that issue was somewhat addressed in the other recent thread about this golf hole... and yeah, on this one I'd agree that a skyline green would be better.  Goodale called it an "infinity green" - the sight would kinda meld into the sea behind - it would be pretty cool.  It also would remove the safety net those bunkers provide for those going for the green from the tee, which apparently is possible now.  All in all it seems like it would be an improvement.  As for why they exist on this hole - and several others at CPC - that's for the Mac experts.

TH

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I have always wondered the same thing about those mounds behind #17.

Sea spray and wind both make growing grass on that green site difficult, and MacKenzie might have thought of those issues when building the green.  But, it could just be he wanted to put bunkers there to frame things, instead of giving the "infinity" background I would have been inclined to preserve.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  As for the vertical center-of-the-fairway obstacles, in general, I have no problem with them. 

The controversial part about the 17th hole at Cypress Point is that a DOGLEG hole, with vertical obstacles past the landing area, makes it very difficult to judge where to drive the ball so you don't finish stymied behind one of them.  A more straightaway hole with trees in the way gives you clearer options and is less controversial.

If a modern architect built a replica of the 17th at Cypress with a lake in place of the ocean, he'd get slaughtered for it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom D:

I think you're right - but I also think none of that makes 17 CPC less great.  Heck, the entire Old Course would get a modern architect slaughtered today, and I believe we can all agree on its greatness.

How far - and on what line - to hit one's teeshot is indeed very tough to judge.  But man, to me that's a GOOD thing.  I enjoy having to figure out golf holes.

But yes, the hole is controversial for sure.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

So to take this one step further.

If a hypothetical arhictect were to have a hypothetical piece of land with similar position to a large body of water with a similar landform to work with, would the solution be to just replace the trees with bunkers to eliminate the vertical component of the hazard?

Not that I'm seriosuly suggest this, but wouldn't the hole play just as fun if the copse of trees were turned in a bunker of similar square area?  And for good measure also add another centerline bunker 30 yards closer to the tee box to keep the tee shot from being too obvious?

Just curious!!

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:

I think such a hole would be a little bit lesser.  The vertical obstacle component adds something to the risks involved... unless you made the bunkers so deep or awful such that one would have to go out sideways, what would be the big deal about hitting into them?  120 yard shots from bunkers ought not to scare anyone all that much.  The fear of being deader than dead - and the increased area in which this can occur, compared to a bunker (no matter how awful) is what makes this golf hole great.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I would think that the nature of the 2nd shot provides plenty of peril as it is.  By having the trees there, if anything it just takes that decision out of your hands.  Consider the following.

Scenario 1)  Your drive goes directly behind trees with no chance to get to green.  You must chip out, which is a relativly safe shot.  Leaving more than likely a simple short wedge approach to the green.

Scenario 2)  Your drive goes in the bunker and it has an iffy lie.  Do you challenge the green with all the trouble with a 8 or 9 iron in-hand?  Or do you layup and play the safer shot into the green.  At least with a bunker you have the opportunity to make a choice.  And its not an easy choice due to all the trouble surrounding the green...a precise bunker shot must be struck.

Thoughts?

[Tom Huckaby]

My thoughts?

You missed the point.  We're talking about decisions to be made on the tee shot.

Make those bunkers and again, unless they are very very horrible, there's no decision to be made.  One just fires as far as he can and if he ends up in them, it's not that big of a deal.

Are you suggesting severely penal bunkers such that one couldn't reach the green if one goes in them?

That to me would be something... but methinks the trees are better.  See, there always is a shot from behind those trees - the only real horror is if one gets right up against them.  It just takes strength and/or creativity to pull off the shot.

TH

[Tim Gavrich]

Is there any real reason to challenge the coastline off the tee?  It looks an awful lot narrower than the left side.  I think that if that is the case, it would have to be a pretty significant flaw in the architecture of the hole, right?  If the fairway right of the trees is a legitimate option, however, then I have much less of a problem with them.

[Tom Huckaby]

Is there any real reason to challenge the coastline off the tee?  It looks an awful lot narrower than the left side.  I think that if that is the case, it would have to be a pretty significant flaw in the architecture of the hole, right?  If the fairway right of the trees is a legitimate option, however, then I have much less of a problem with them.

Tim:

There is seemingly very little reason to do it, other than the temptation of trying to pull off a very cool shot.  The area directly to the right of the trees is minuscule - and in order to leave a clear path to the green from farther back, one does have to really hug the coastline... a very difficult shot to pull off.

BUT....

When one considers how far back one has to leave his ball in order to safely go over the trees.....
and
how relatively easy it is to get too close to the trees to be blocked....
and
how darn far one has to hit it - or far left - to have a clear shot going that route...
and
how one can pull it and be blocked by the trees on the LEFT....
well...

the temptation to hug the coast gets greater.

So far from being a weakness, I see it as genius.  There is no clear obvious way to play this golf hole.  All choices have positives and negatives.

TH

[Tim Nugent]

Kalen, I agree w/TH. The trees are not only a positional hazard (although not in the true definination of the word) but more importantly a massive verticle hazard.  One can simply hit over a bunker if they end up behind it but must bend a shot around the trees.  Couple this with the onshore wind and it makes for some testy decision making.
Although a n infinity green would be visually appealing, I have always wondered "what if" he had put the rear bunker in front of the green? To make the golfer put it up in the wind, knowing that long or right is not a good option.  Depending on the strength of the wind, you may find it necessary to hang it out over the coast and let the wind bring it back - one of the scariest things you can ask of a player.  Now imagine your options if you end up behind the trees. A) cut it around the left - but don't over cut it - the ocean awaits, or B) draw it around the right - aiming out to sea where, for the dreaded straight ball, the ocean awaits.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

While I agree the copse of trees would likely be a worse fate, I think a nasty centerline bunker could be very effective as well.  I'm thinking several feet deep with lots of uphill and downhill lies with puffy cloud edges that MacK would be in favor of.  #5 has some pretty tough bunkers, perhaps something of this nature.

While this may not be much of a deterent for you and your 3 handicap short game, I'm guessing the vast majority would prefer to stay clear of them.

So it would have the best of both worlds, enough penalty to get people thinking about them, but not as penal as the trees so that one could still consider having a go at the green from them.  Its all about the choices right?

Once again, I'm not suggesting they should do this, just saying it could be done as an effective alternative as I agree with Tom D that a new implemenation of this would never fly!!

[ChipOat]

Nobody here should be surprised that I have big problems with "vertical center of the fairway obstacles".  Don't get me started (again).

Tom Doak:  As you have pointed out in prior threads about my reaction to Stupid Trees, I am both emotional and rigid in my point of view.  But I really do admire golf holes where the angles and architecture that are on the ground (only) are what create the choices for shape and direction of the shot to be played (or the one that follows).  I do not like those bunkers in the sky.

Ike's Tree - very bad.  Pebble #18 - very bad.  Cypress #17 (and #18, too) - very bad.

Trees are fine if you encounter them from a place where you ought not to have hit the little white ball.

From the fairway or within 150 yards of a tee box = very, very bad.

Hmm - I guess I got started, anyway.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen - first of all I haven't been a 3 for a good long while.  And my short game sucks.  But more importantly, this is far from all about me.  I truly do believe that a bunker - even exactly as you described - doesn't provide the intimidation than do the trees, nor does it allow for the creative recoveries.  Make it too tough and one just pitches out, or takes an unplayable... make it too easy and even for a 30 handicap it's not that intimidating.  It would be very tough to make it equal what's there now... which Tim N. just described perfectly.  The trees allow for so much more possibilties... and that is the point here.

TH

ps - chip, your stance is duly noted.  For those of us without such biases against trees, the hole plays quite well.  But it is absolutely no surprise you hate it.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

what about #16 at harbour town?

[JESII]

Nobody here should be surprised that I have big problems with "vertical center of the fairway obstacles".  Don't get me started (again).

Tom Doak:  As you have pointed out in prior threads about my reaction to Stupid Trees, I am both emotional and rigid in my point of view.  But I really do admire golf holes where the angles and architecture that are on the ground (only) are what create the choices for shape and direction of the shot to be played (or the one that follows).  I do not like those bunkers in the sky.

Ike's Tree - very bad.  Pebble #18 - very bad.  Cypress #17 (and #18, too) - very bad.

Trees are fine if you encounter them from a place where you ought not to have hit the little white ball.

From the fairway or within 150 yards of a tee box = very, very bad.

Hmm - I guess I got started, anyway.

Chip,

If you are going to be behind a tree, wouldn't you prefer to be on short grass?

[Tim Nugent]

#16 HT? Pretty skinny pine tree - just aim for it and odds are you won't hit it. Remember, PD favors "visual clutter" in his designs - just to get you thinking (and becoming your worst own enemy). Not that I am proponent of trees in fairways - I voted to chainsaw the Cherry in #17 at Crystal D. - and HT has some narrow fairways.  #17 at CP though is wide enough to offer you the option and hence the thrust of this thread THE DECISION that has to be made on the tee.  I have always favored the "line of charm" theory because it forces one to make decisions.  When ever you have to make a decision, you end uop with the little nagging fear that it might not be the right one.  This little infusion of doubt is why the longest distance on a good course is the 5-inches between ones ears.

[Bill Brightly]

Chip

I am usually right with you on the stupid tree argument, but not this one.  There seems to be plenty of room to miss these trees.

[Kalen Braley]

Let me clarify my position on this...I just had a long offline discussion, so thought I should add this.

I'm not saying we should go my route....just saying that if the trees were lost due to disease or whatever, and they didn't want to replace them, then my suggestion would still make for a pretty darn good hole IMO.....albiet it would not be as good as the original.   

[Tom Huckaby]

Let me clarify my position on this...I just had a long offline discussion, so thought I should add this.

I'm not saying we should go my route....just saying that if the trees were lost due to disease or whatever, and they didn't want to replace them, then my suggestion would still make for a pretty darn good hole IMO.....albiet it would not be as good as the original.   

That works, for sure.  Here's hoping this never need be considered, though.  And keep in mind, there are likely many who would disagree with even this... and would indeed favor bunkers there over the current trees.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom H:  I agree with you that 17 at Cypress is a great hole, even if it would be criticized in a different setting.  Also agree that the trees add a LOT to the integrity of the hole.  The bunkers Kalen suggests are the only real potential replacement, but they would not have 1/10 the impact on strategy that the trees have.

Coincidentally, the last time I was at Cypress Point I played the right-hand route on 17 ... which is now even more difficult to do than years earlier, because some of the fairway and rough down the right side have fallen into the sea in recent years!  However, successfully playing the right-hand route was the capper to a glorious day.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom D:

I think that's another thing about this hole that people miss... playing down the right side is so freakin' fun in so many ways, well... damn right pulling it off is a great capper for any day there....

And once you've done it, man it becomes even that much more tempting to try again if one gets to go back.  I pulled it off once and now each time upon returning it's like a drug... very very hard to resist....

TH