Would the 17th at CPC be a vastly better hole if

[Tom Huckaby]

Actually the silver fox is a fine example here.

Make it the first Mucci suggestion and what's in it for him?  Bash away, wedge on, yawwwwwnnnn

Make it the second and you think he fears the bunker?  No way.  Bash away, if somehow in the bunker, wedge it onto green....

Keep it as is, and the story of his legendary drive gets repeated often.

That ought to really say enough here....

[Scott Warren]

Any of those non tree versions just looks like a diet coke version of the actual hole. And the bunkers for a good player are very little trouble, unless you made them plenty deep.

[Tom Huckaby]

Any of those non tree versions just looks like a diet coke version of the actual hole. And the bunkers for a good player are very little trouble, unless you made them plenty deep.

My points rather exactly... and re the bunkers... make them plenty deep and reaching them is a pitchout... exactly the thing the anti-tree folks complain about.

But thanks for giving the naysayers the evidence!

 

[Kalen Braley]

Scott and Tom,

I understand your view of not wanting to swap the trees out for bunkering...

But I don't understand the wholesale bashing of bunkering in general.  Does this mean to say we need to swap out every bunker at CPC for a tree?  And every other course for that matter?  While its true they aren't much challenge for a good player, they do provide such to everyone else. In the case of 17 don't you think it would be intimidating trying to approach that green from a fairway bunker knowing that if you hit it thin, your likely in the ocean?

In the end though, while I think bunkering would work just fine on this hole, in this case, its such a wonderful as is, I just see no need to go messing with it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:

Who bashed bunkering in general?

Certainly not me....

The swap was suggested on THIS HOLE.  And on THIS HOLE, it is not an improvement.  But again the whole key here is that THIS HOLE is unique.

Sorry to shout....

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Consider my recent query a refinement or fine tuning of the first.

Does anyone know when the fairway bunkers were removed ?

Can Jamie Slonis or anyone else access the Historical photos so that we can get a chronological sense on the configuration of the hole ?

[Tom Huckaby]

Pat:

Well OK then.  Can I also consider the original question STUPID?

 

Not sure why you are harping on those bunkers anyway.. it was just the small amount of ground surrounding the trees... the key question if you are going to base this on historical status (which I am not prepared to agree is all-consuming anyway) is DID THE HOLE EVER GET PLAYED WITHOUT SOME SORT OF TREES THERE?

[Padraig Dooley]

Here's the plaque on the tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

Well OK then. 
Can I also consider the original question STUPID?

You can consider the question in any category you choose.
I happen to think that the question has merit, architecturally.
Ask yourself, if you were building that hole today, would you plant trees there ?
I think few, if any, would answer yes.

Not sure why you are harping on those bunkers anyway.. it was just the small amount of ground surrounding the trees... the key question if you are going to base this on historical status (which I am not prepared to agree is all-consuming anyway) is DID THE HOLE EVER GET PLAYED WITHOUT SOME SORT OF TREES THERE?

I'm hoping that the historical photos will reveal the answer to that and other questions

[Tom Huckaby]

Yahoooo! I finally got the green!

Pat, a better question is this:  if you saw those trees there (which had to have been the case - they must pre-date the course), would you cut them down?

In any case your second question - replacing it with something - has merit.  Your first question - cut them down, leave nothing - remains so obvious as to be rather stupid.  On top of that, this has been discussed countless times already.

With all due respect, of course.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

With 60 responses and 725 views, so far, evidently it wasn't discussed enough the first time.

In addition, the pictures help, and hopefully, the historical aerials will add to the chronological evolution of the hole.

There's no question that the trees are unique, but, if they were on a hole anywhere else, other than one bordering the Pacific, I doubt that they'd get much support.

Let's look at the historical aerials before making final statements.

Another question is, why were the bunkers removed ?

[JMEvensky]

Yahoooo! I finally got the green!

Pat, a better question is this:  if you saw those trees there (which had to have been the case - they must pre-date the course), would you cut them down?

In any case your second question - replacing it with something - has merit.  Your first question - cut them down, leave nothing - remains so obvious as to be rather stupid.  On top of that, this has been discussed countless times already.

With all due respect, of course.

 

Using the word "stupid" is just asking for trouble.Watch your hands and feet.

BTW- I liked the trees,especially from the back markers.

[Tom Huckaby]

JME:

Pat and I have used far worse words.  This is a discussion among friends.

Pat:

Well... take my contributions out and what have you got?  I blame myself for stubborn-ness.  And it has all been covered before, including the historical.  A search would achieve your ends.  But heck, someone might want a different form of research assignment, so what the hell.

My take remains that the hole is pretty perfect as is - and the historical matters not to me, nor do any other what ifs.  It plays in a very very unique fashion.  In fact it is one of the world's more memorable golf holes - and a lot of that is due to the trees.

But feel free to conjecture... or search.....

 

[Mike Benham]

Can anyone answer my question posted previously asking how wide that avenue down the outside of the trees is?

Go on google earth and measure if you want this precise....

My guess is about 20 yards from tree edge to cliff edge, depending on where you measure.

It is NOT a very viable play - what is somewhat viable is staying farther back, hitting a right-handed cut with a 210 club or so... that leaves about 150 in, clear... if you hug the edge close enough.

This won't help ...

[Mike Benham]

[Tom Huckaby]

Those do continue your legend in any case, oh great Silver Fox.

The caddie in first pic is standing where I tend to leave a drive.  Going over is difficult, but doable.

The second pic shows where Sluggin' Mike got his drive to.  He plays a game with which I am not familiar... without some serious wind help.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I find the hole to be a wonderful hole, and, as someone else stated, probably one of the great views in golf from the tee.

With or without the trees I have to believe it's a fabulous hole.
The trees make it quite unique.

But, again, if it wasn't CPC, I wonder if someone building an identical hole would incorporate trees in the middle of the fairway.

Plus, I thought by starting this thread I'd take some of the heat off TEPaul and his irrational defense of removing and failing to restore an internal feature on the 18th green at PV.

[Ian Andrew]

Pat,

I think the Cypress have sort of a mystical pleasure that makes them just a little bit more compelling than if they were a group of Pines. There is a ghostly quality that they add to the hole that is really cool. Strategically I don’t really care for them, but I certainly would not be the one to recommend their removal if I were lucky enough to work with the club.

I will confess –so you can freely call me a hypocrite – that I would cut down the trees in middle of the 18th at Pebble Beach. I think the lack of width is a more serious issue at Pebble Beach. At Cypress there is room - and you simply have to make a choice for the tee. I suppose - like Adam said in a previous post that you can lay back at Pebble - but the tree is still in the middle of the hole on your second shot.

My2c

[Tim Bert]

My caddie left me with a 3-iron hybrid on the tee while he walked out ahead to the fairway.  I was pretty blindly following direction (ok, except or #16) and enjoying the experience of the course, so I just went with it not really understanding how I was going to get home.  I'm not a particularly long hitter - when I'm hitting that 3-iron the best it is going 215 and more often than not it is going 200 (and sometimes less.)

I hit the club perfectly on the line he dictated, and my ball landed directly behind the trees.  As I was walking up to my ball grumbling about the club selection and how I was going to get around the trees, the other caddie pointed out that my caddie intended for me not to go around, but to go over the trees on the approach.  He had intentionally aimed me squarely behind the trees, but far enough back to clear them.  I was left with an 8-iron in my hand, and I don't hit the ball particularly high.  I had plenty of room to get the 8-iron up and over the trees and plenty of distance to reach the green... if I didn't bail the shot out left and leave myself in double bogey territory from the left greenside rough.

Even looking at this photo of my ball in the fairway, I don't trust that the 8-iron is enough club or that I can get the ball lofted quickly enough to go over... but it was and I did.



I would have never imagined that I could get home on this hole with 3-hybrid, 8-iron from looking at pictures or reading about the course.  It was a very realistic possibility had I not failed on the execution.  My point is to address another option that hasn't been talked about in detail, which is over and above.  It doesn't take extraordinary distance or loft to do it.

It was an option I've seen presented on few other holes.  I'll never forget the swing of emotions from "I've struck it perfectly" to "I'm trapped", and then from "no I'm actually in really good shape" to "I'm in big trouble."  Each shot on the hole left a lasting memory, as did every shot on the golf course.  I have more fond memories of individual golf shots (both good and bad) from that round than I've ever experienced during any other single round.

For the record, I'm also in the minority camp of "the trees work on #18" despite the fact that I wouldn't recommend re-creating the hole on any tribute courses any time soon.         

[Scott Warren]

Just a thought, if the trees are built up all the way over to the cliff, and it's just a plain old dogleg right, would there be any complaint or suggstion that they be pulled out? I don't think so. There are plenty of holes of that length that dogleg at that angle.

So what's wrong with an almost identical hole where the only difference is that the smart or highly skilled player is offered a few more options?

[Brett Morris]

I think the Cypress have sort of a mystical pleasure that makes them just a little bit more compelling than if they were a group of Pines. There is a ghostly quality that they add to the hole that is really cool.  

Ian,

I don't know what a young Cypress tree looks like, but I noticed a few weeks ago when I was there that (it looked like) a young pine of some sort has been planted on 16.  Will take on a different feel (and look) on 16 when mature if it is a pine.  You can see the tree following.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

I wonder how you would have evaluated the hole had you thinned your approach into the trees.

Did you consider that the blind nature of your approach might have influenced your off line shot ?

Ian,

I agree about the "Ghostly" quality, it is rather unique, especially on a foggy day.

[Dan Boerger]

I've never played the course, but from the pics alone I like it better with the trees.

While my course had 300+ trees removed in the past few years and is far better for it, I'm one who thinks trees, beyond framing a hole, have some real merit and, in the right hands, provide some real strategic value. Sure, they grow, they lose their leaves, they get pruned -- so they are hardly static, but neither are pin positions, green speed and the weather.

[Tim Bert]

Patrick

I wonder as well. I can only speculate because I didn't but I think I would have the same opinion of the hole.

The key for me was that once I was standing on top of my ball I knew I COULD hit the shot. That's what I wanted - just a shot at it. As I said I don't hit with great loft so there was probably a 1 in 3 or 4 chance I didn't get it up and over but it was clearly an option.

I think the ocean had as much impact on my bail out as the bkind nature of the shot. It isn't a completely blind shot since you can somewhat get a line through the trees.

[Brad Swanson]

I'm not sure which is worse in these CPC threads, the genuflecting or groveling.  Some things never change.

Cheers,
Brad