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.


Patrick_Mucci

Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« on: October 29, 2009, 10:06:33 PM »
the ultimate tribute to the Biarritz concept ?

Is there a better natural setting for a Biarritz in all of America ?

Did Raynor's design have a Biarritz on that site ?

Would it not be the absolute, ideal Biarritz in all the world ?

The equivalent of the 4th at NGLA and the ultimate Redan ?

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2009, 10:19:13 PM »
We don't know what Raynor had in mind, and the present greensite may not have been even considered for hole at all, yet alone a par 3.







"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Eric_Terhorst

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2009, 11:05:03 PM »
Patrick, you probably know that on "The original Biarritz (France)" thread, George Bahto said

"So just as a reminder of the general concept of this hole, it was played from the 80' cliff, over about 155-160 yards of the Bay of Biscay to a 50' cliff beyond." 

He also said that he hadn't discovered any pictures of the green.

Aside from the elevation change, isn't that about what the 16th at Cypress is?  Are you saying the hole should have been shorter?  I'm sure you'll tell me if my questions demonstrate that your questions are over my head...



Jordan Wall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2009, 11:08:30 PM »
Pat,

I don't believe so.

Having never played a true biarritz, I know that there are still many around the world of golf.

Being the case, I like how one of a kind the sixteenth hole at Cypress is.  Though perhaps an ideal spot for the ultimate biarritz, the hole would lose it's originailty if it was a template hole.

I consider the hole perfect.  Have you ever played a better par-3?  Have you ever played a better hole?

Besides the fact the site would allow for the ultimate biarritz, do you really believe it would make the hole better than it is now?

I don't believe having the sixteenth at Cypress as a template would improve the hole, even if it was the best biarritz in the world.

V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2009, 12:21:03 AM »
All,

In advance I apologize for I have little scholarship or research investment in Cypress Point; I've never played it and since it went off the Crosby rota, there's little opportunity to see or hear much about the conduct of play there - though various articles, interviews and discussion points from the GCA bounty are helping me along...

My contribution or inquiry to this discussion:

1.  I know I have read somewhere that there is conjecture re: that the hole may have been envisioned as a two-shotter or a "half-par" hole (which would be unique as there are few long one-shotters that are thought of in this way)

2.  I also am under the impression that there is some level of provenance to the claim AM's female associate (I'm sorry I'm drawing a blank - Marion Hollins?) had a larger hand in the routing/design of that particular stretch of the course than is commonly understood.

As to Biarritz insinuations (which may be more germane to PM's original post) :

a. I began a thread last week that was polling and exchanging ideas and viewpoints on the Raynor Biarritzes at Yale and Fishers and a lot came out of it (for me at least).  One item became apparent and that is we don't know for sure what the original French Biarritz really looked like.  G. Bahto produced a painting of the scene, but it only captured a perpendicular perspective on the first portion of the shot from the left, nothing of the green complex.  Without sounding demeaning to my favorite architect, Seth Raynor, I say that Raynor never knew what the original Biarritz actually looked like.  He of course may have had access to other paintings and photos that are long veiled in the mist of history, plus the direct (and I'm sure) fulsome anecdotal descriptions from CBM.

b. After looking at Google Earth and some light research materials about the history of Biarritz's recreational environment, I believe I was able to ascertain the site of the original Biarritz and I posted the coordinates of what I believe the painter's perspective was for that picture as the last post on that thread. Though I gulp taking on even the second-hand (from ET) reports of what G. Bahto's conclusions about the original are, I must confess that if I have discovered the correct site it is NOT, I repeat, NOT a massive carry over the sea gorge.  It is no more than 60-80 yards...yes, the scenic (to the eye) scary (to the swing) water looms off the right and it is a craggy peninsula with isolated, limitless sea vistas for 150 degrees.  It seems breathtaking as many of the Raynor copies are, but even in a gutty/hickory age where an average man's good drive carried 160-180 yds, it is NOT the forced blast that Cypress seems to command    from the voluminous pictures and descriptions I have encountered, albeit without a scholar's depth or playing experience myself.

c.  How does this advance the discussion vis a vis Cypress and "shoulda, woulda, coulda?" In short, I believe that Raynor was always on the lookout for a Biarritz that had HIS idea of faithfulness to the original (which was either mistaken or eschewed for his own and his colleagues').  Net-net?  This is exactly the kind of land-form Raynor would say, "Biarritz" and go for it. 

I'm sorry if any of this is hopelessly misinformed.

Cheers

vk
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Chuck Brown

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2009, 12:24:59 AM »
Pat,

I don't believe so.

Having never played a true biarritz, I know that there are still many around the world of golf.

Being the case, I like how one of a kind the sixteenth hole at Cypress is.  Though perhaps an ideal spot for the ultimate biarritz, the hole would lose it's originailty if it was a template hole.

I consider the hole perfect.  Have you ever played a better par-3?  Have you ever played a better hole?

Besides the fact the site would allow for the ultimate biarritz, do you really believe it would make the hole better than it is now?

I don't believe having the sixteenth at Cypress as a template would improve the hole, even if it was the best biarritz in the world.


I gotta say I agree with Jordan although I haven't had the rare privilege of playing CPC.  I've played the Biarritz at Yale, and yes as far as I know the landform at CPC would have been an ideal place for Seth Raynor to attempt to template himself a Biarritz, and it is almost impossible to think that Raynor would have done anything there other than a Biarritz.  It is that ideally suited.  (I think a true Biarritz would have been a shorter hole, aimed more to the left from the present green positioning, right?)  But as Jordan says...

As for a Redan 16th at CPC, it would have been a reverse-Redan if anything, right?  I'm not sure how the essential "tilt" to the "tableland" would have been achieved.

Sean Leary

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2009, 12:46:16 AM »
I think a severe green of any kind there would be too overwhelming.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2009, 10:04:29 AM »
Pat,

Being the case, I like how one of a kind the sixteenth hole at Cypress is.  Though perhaps an ideal spot for the ultimate biarritz, the hole would lose it's originailty if it was a template hole.

I consider the hole perfect.  Have you ever played a better par-3?  Have you ever played a better hole?

Besides the fact the site would allow for the ultimate biarritz, do you really believe it would make the hole better than it is now?

I don't believe having the sixteenth at Cypress as a template would improve the hole, even if it was the best biarritz in the world.

While I mostly disagree with Jordan's estimation of the hole, I too would not change a thing.  It is way too long and exposed to the environment to have a small canal perpendicular to the line of flight splitting the green (though it would make it more dicey for the "strategy" types who lay up to the left).  For many, getting the ball on dry land is a major achievement.  Having a 60'+ putt over a sizable swale would deflate the glorious experience of hitting the green with a good chance to two-putt for par.

I think that #16 is actually not a very good par 3 and hardly a "template" hole.  For most visitors it is a high risk all-or-nothing one shot hole- you either stay on the course somewhere on or near the green or you keep reteeing until you do so, or give up and take an illegal drop.  I don't know the membership, but I suspect that a good number can't make or don't even attempt the carry.  In effect, for them it plays more like a par 4 with still a not-so-easy forced carry.

In my opinion, four things make #16 famous: 1) the outstanding natural beauty of the setting, 2) its juxtapostion with the very "ideal" short #15, 3) the wonderful walk from #15 green to #16 tee with the anticipation of what awaits at the end, 4) how CPC chooses to characterize the edges of the course- i.e. no boundaries.  Line the cliffs in red or yellow, and the complexion of the hole changes considerably. 

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2009, 10:10:52 AM »
Patrick,
Of course, it would have made the perfect Biarritz and it seems likely that the thought would have occurred to Raynor.

It would be hard to find a better site for one.

"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2009, 10:33:54 AM »
should there be any question?

From  The Spirit of St. Andrews  -  The Lost manuscript of Alister MacKenzie

Sleeping Bear Press
121 South Main Street
PO Box 20
Chelsea, MI 48118

"The 16th at Cypress Point"

There is one exceptionally fine one-shot hole, namely, the 16th at Cypress Point, California, which so far no one has suggested should be altered. This hole, however, is of an entirely different character to that of which I have just written. Its excellence is not due to the tilt of the green, but to the amazingly beautiful and spectacular ocean hazard intervening between the tee and the green. To give honor where it is due, I must say that, except for minor details of construction, I was in no way responsible for the hole. It was largely due to the vision of Miss Marion Hollins (the founder of Cypress Point).  It was suggested to her 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 suggested green. The photograph on page 52 givers a good idea of the character of the hole. There are three alternative routes, namely, the direct route over 200 hundred yards of ocean, an intermediate route over about 100 yards of ocean, and still a shorter route to the left.

A well-played shot to the lone Cypress tree with a nicely calculated slice gets the help of  the slope and runs up a slight swale and still have a good chance of a three.

I doubted if this hole could be considered ideal, because I feared that, compared with the other Cypress Point holes, there was not a sufficiently easy route for the weaker player. My mind was set at rest a few months ago.

Alister MacKenzie  1934
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2009, 11:21:28 AM »
    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 suggested green. 



Do we know if AM's account here wasn't performed in his presence and not SR's? I think it's possible that Hollins reconted the remark of SR to AM and then the sentence recounts how Hollins showed AM, not SR.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2009, 11:31:21 AM »
    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 suggested green. 



Do we know if AM's account here wasn't performed in his presence and not SR's? I think it's possible that Hollins reconted the remark of SR to AM and then the sentence recounts how Hollins showed AM, not SR.

Hard to imagine the good doctor being modest!  ;D

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2009, 11:36:06 AM »
    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 suggested green. 



Do we know if AM's account here wasn't performed in his presence and not SR's? I think it's possible that Hollins reconted the remark of SR to AM and then the sentence recounts how Hollins showed AM, not SR.

Hard to imagine the good doctor being modest!  ;D


That's my point, Bill. AM, I think, would not have used an idea of someone elses, especially Raynor. 
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2009, 11:39:32 AM »
    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 suggested green. 



Do we know if AM's account here wasn't performed in his presence and not SR's? I think it's possible that Hollins reconted the remark of SR to AM and then the sentence recounts how Hollins showed AM, not SR.

Hard to imagine the good doctor being modest!  ;D


That's my point, Bill. AM, I think, would not have used an idea of someone elses, especially Raynor. 

Without knowing anything at all about anything absolutely 100%, it has always been my understanding that it was Marion Hollins showing Mackenzie that the hole could play as a par 3.  We know so little about Raynor's work on site that it's hard to imagine that scene taking place with Raynor there.

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2009, 11:45:39 AM »
    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 suggested green. 



Do we know if AM's account here wasn't performed in his presence and not SR's? I think it's possible that Hollins reconted the remark of SR to AM and then the sentence recounts how Hollins showed AM, not SR.

Hard to imagine the good doctor being modest!  ;D


That's my point, Bill. AM, I think, would not have used an idea of someone elses, especially Raynor. 

Without knowing anything at all about anything absolutely 100%, it has always been my understanding that it was Marion Hollins showing Mackenzie that the hole could play as a par 3.  We know so little about Raynor's work on site that it's hard to imagine that scene taking place with Raynor there.

That is what I took from the passage as well.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Jed Rammell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2009, 11:51:15 AM »
Pat,

Being the case, I like how one of a kind the sixteenth hole at Cypress is.  Though perhaps an ideal spot for the ultimate biarritz, the hole would lose it's originailty if it was a template hole.

I consider the hole perfect.  Have you ever played a better par-3?  Have you ever played a better hole?

Besides the fact the site would allow for the ultimate biarritz, do you really believe it would make the hole better than it is now?

I don't believe having the sixteenth at Cypress as a template would improve the hole, even if it was the best biarritz in the world.

While I mostly disagree with Jordan's estimation of the hole, I too would not change a thing.  It is way too long and exposed to the environment to have a small canal perpendicular to the line of flight splitting the green (though it would make it more dicey for the "strategy" types who lay up to the left).  For many, getting the ball on dry land is a major achievement.  Having a 60'+ putt over a sizable swale would deflate the glorious experience of hitting the green with a good chance to two-putt for par.

I think that #16 is actually not a very good par 3 and hardly a "template" hole.  For most visitors it is a high risk all-or-nothing one shot hole- you either stay on the course somewhere on or near the green or you keep reteeing until you do so, or give up and take an illegal drop.  I don't know the membership, but I suspect that a good number can't make or don't even attempt the carry.  In effect, for them it plays more like a par 4 with still a not-so-easy forced carry.

In my opinion, four things make #16 famous: 1) the outstanding natural beauty of the setting, 2) its juxtapostion with the very "ideal" short #15, 3) the wonderful walk from #15 green to #16 tee with the anticipation of what awaits at the end, 4) how CPC chooses to characterize the edges of the course- i.e. no boundaries.  Line the cliffs in red or yellow, and the complexion of the hole changes considerably. 

I think I agree (though I've only played Cypress in my dreams). Many call this the finest golf hole in the world, but isn't it just an all or nothing manhood measuring contest? #10 at Riveria or #18 at Pebble surely offer more strategic elements, and in my mind are much better candidates as the finest hole in golf (never played them either). 

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2009, 01:32:31 PM »
I qouted exactly what was in the Mackenzie book - his "lost manuscript" that Sleeping Bear published .... page 15-something or other

from there on you can surmise whatever you'd like
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2009, 01:55:42 PM »
Jed, Your assumption is incorrect. Don't believe me, believe the good doctor in the passage posted above by George Bahto.

It is not an all or nothing question.

I was fortunate to play in a significant competition on my one and only play, there. Circumstances outside of my control made it prudent to NOT play it all or nothing. Instead, to aim slightly left of the green to ensure a safe ball. You can believe I was not happy having to play safe, but, since it was a team comp. my interests were not the dominate ones at stake. Yes, I was bitching, internally, and yes I was very tempted to throw caution to the wind, but in the end, I did the right thing, hit slightly left (Almost pin high) and we ended up winning the championship.

BTW, The caddies went out one day and measured the actual carry with a fishing line. 197 yards to carry.

David, Bill, I don't see it as that clear cut. If, as the doctor writes, Miss Hollins was the founder of CPC, and she had SR out to see the raw site, she could've easily proved it to him there and then.

The doctor's account seems to recall the incident without interjecting he was a witness to it.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 01:59:16 PM by Adam Clayman »
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Jordan Wall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2009, 02:02:54 PM »
Pat,

Being the case, I like how one of a kind the sixteenth hole at Cypress is.  Though perhaps an ideal spot for the ultimate biarritz, the hole would lose it's originailty if it was a template hole.

I consider the hole perfect.  Have you ever played a better par-3?  Have you ever played a better hole?

Besides the fact the site would allow for the ultimate biarritz, do you really believe it would make the hole better than it is now?

I don't believe having the sixteenth at Cypress as a template would improve the hole, even if it was the best biarritz in the world.

While I mostly disagree with Jordan's estimation of the hole, I too would not change a thing.  It is way too long and exposed to the environment to have a small canal perpendicular to the line of flight splitting the green (though it would make it more dicey for the "strategy" types who lay up to the left).  For many, getting the ball on dry land is a major achievement.  Having a 60'+ putt over a sizable swale would deflate the glorious experience of hitting the green with a good chance to two-putt for par.

I think that #16 is actually not a very good par 3 and hardly a "template" hole.  For most visitors it is a high risk all-or-nothing one shot hole- you either stay on the course somewhere on or near the green or you keep reteeing until you do so, or give up and take an illegal drop.  I don't know the membership, but I suspect that a good number can't make or don't even attempt the carry.  In effect, for them it plays more like a par 4 with still a not-so-easy forced carry.

In my opinion, four things make #16 famous: 1) the outstanding natural beauty of the setting, 2) its juxtapostion with the very "ideal" short #15, 3) the wonderful walk from #15 green to #16 tee with the anticipation of what awaits at the end, 4) how CPC chooses to characterize the edges of the course- i.e. no boundaries.  Line the cliffs in red or yellow, and the complexion of the hole changes considerably. 

I think I agree (though I've only played Cypress in my dreams). Many call this the finest golf hole in the world, but isn't it just an all or nothing manhood measuring contest? #10 at Riveria or #18 at Pebble surely offer more strategic elements, and in my mind are much better candidates as the finest hole in golf (never played them either). 

Jed,

Having played all the holes you mention, the sixteenth at Cypress is in equal terms with regards to strategic merit as the tenth at Riviera and the eighteenth at Pebble.

The difference between those holes is the length and par of each, which in this case does make a difference.  As a par-3, the sixteenth at Cypress has one primary shot, the tee shot, with which shines the strategic merit.

In this shot, one can choose to be a hero by going for the green, and being that one is playing Cypress and is probably not likely to get that chance many times, that is the shot that most will try.  However, one can also choose to lay up.  The closer one lays up the cliff, the better the angle to green, and usually the shorter the second shot.

The only shot that provides the same excitement from the other holes you mention is the tee shot at the tenth at Riviera, where many options abound.  The only difference is, there is not the same heroic nature in going for the green at Riviera as there is at Cypress, because the penalty if you do not make it far less severe.  Remember, if you miss at Cypress, it's three from the tee.

Pebble's eighteenth is a wonderful hole as well and provides its own strategic merit.  Included in this is a cape like tee shot over the ocean, and a second shot that requires decisive thinking for where to lay up or perhaps go for the green.  The closer to the ocean on the second shot, the better the angle to the green, and naturally, the closer the tee shot to the ocean, the better angle to go for the green in two.  The tee shot also provides more of a heroic nature than that of Riviera because again, if you duck it into the ocean, it's three from the tee.

Riviera's gets it's strength from it's abundance of options off the tee, and the wonderfully unique green that alters plays from the tee and the approach.

The main difference I see between these three holes, however, is the fact that the sixteenth at Cypress plays mind games with the players.  When someone plays Cypress for the first time, the shot they think about the entire round is that tee shot on sixteen.  This is not the case with the tenth at Riviera or the eighteenth at Pebble, or at least not as much so at the sixteenth at Cypress.

In any case, all three are great holes and are surely among the best in the world.

To get back to Pat's question, even if the sexteenth at Cypress was a biarritz, it would just be too hard at 230+ yards.  

And in thinking, if the hole was a biarritz and ultimately the green had been moved left and not on the bluff to which it currently plays, how might that have adversey affected the seventeenth hole?

I don't believe there to be a better way to design the sixteenth and seventeenth holes.  How can you argue with the games strongest par-3?

TEPaul

Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2009, 02:13:51 PM »
Pat:

When you ask if the 16th at CPC should've been a biarritz hole I'm not too sure what you have in mind. What would be different about it? Are you thinking of a green (or fairway then green) that is really long with a big swale in it.

If so, that seems to be one of the mysterious and heretofore unanswered questions about the original Biarrtiz hole in France. I don't know that anyone has ever been sure whether that green did have some really big swale in it which seems to be a centerpiece for all Macdonald/Raynor and Raynor biarritzes and biarritzes by others.

On the other hand the only Biarritzes I know of that have that carry across water or something very similar to it are Yale and Fishers Island, and The Creek.

I have always thought the massive swale in Biarritz greens was an idea Macdonald perhaps got from NB's #16.

Don't forget, C.B. always did say he did not always use whole hole copies with what he did, sometimes prefering to just use some individual feature from somewhere on another hole somewhere else.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2009, 02:15:11 PM »
Don't forget the wind's affect. It determines one's strategy decision as well as club selection. The green site is large enough that it can create as much as a three club difference, independent of the wind.

The Biarittz idea is horrible. Better saved for ground with less of it's own character. At CPC's 16th, that is not the case.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2009, 02:16:49 PM »
Jordan,
It would be a hard hole, no doubt, but the pleasure of watching the disappearing/reappearing ball would be tremendous.
Yale's carry from the tips is 180+- (don't quote me). Cypress' is 200?

  
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2009, 02:28:20 PM »

 
David, Bill, I don't see it as that clear cut. If, as the doctor writes, Miss Hollins was the founder of CPC, and she had SR out to see the raw site, she could've easily proved it to him there and then.

The doctor's account seems to recall the incident without interjecting he was a witness to it.


I understand, Adam. But we don't know what SR had planned, if he even did. If in fact Hollins had hit the shot in front of Raynor, we don't know if he had been persuaded because there is no plan (as of yet) that has turned up and we don't know what Raynor had to say about the site. We don't know if he even would've used the site at all, yet alone for a heroic par 3. Had Raynor done a par 3 of that length and difficulty before? It would seem out of character for him, and I agree w/ Jordan, it would've been even more difficult by using the site as a Biarritz template complete with the swale. I think there is a reason AM chose to design the most benign green on the course. Anything more undulating/severe would've made it borderline impossible.


If Raynor had been convinced of 16, if he had drawn up plans and the course was pretty much designed already before his death, why bring AM in at all? Could Hollins and others utilized those plans and built the course without searching out AM? AM had not yet entered super stardom yet and Raynor was a known name. Was not the MPCC Dunes a Raynor design and then built after his death? 
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 02:31:39 PM by David Stamm »
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2009, 02:41:02 PM »
I think a Biarritz on the 16th at Cypress is like putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

Bob

Jordan Wall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2009, 02:42:51 PM »
Jordan,
It would be a hard hole, no doubt, but the pleasure of watching the disappearing/reappearing ball would be tremendous.
Yale's carry from the tips is 180+- (don't quote me). Cypress' is 200?

  

From Ran's review: "The reality is only slightly more on a human scale with tee perched high on an embankment sixty feet above Griest Pond.

The sixteenth at Cypress has almost no elevation change.  It probably plays at least three clubs longer than Yale's 9th, and not to mentione it is completely exposed to the always strong ocean breeze.