Should the 16th at Cypress Point have been

[Eric_Terhorst]

Patrick,

If you set out to confuse us about what exactly is a "Biarritz" hole, you seem to have succeeded.  I note that some commentators think the template is a heroic hole over a chasm, and some think it's a par 3 with a big swale in the green.  I couldn't imagine that you would be serious about suggesting a big swale in the green at Cypress #16, that's why I didn't bother to dismiss that suggestion as Adam did.  Please have pity on us lesser intellects and clear up your thinking as Tom Paul suggests.

Lou Duran, you said

"I think that #16 is actually not a very good par 3 ...  In effect...it plays more like a par 4 with still a not-so-easy forced carry."

Why in the world would you evaluate a hole like this with this discussion of its par on the scorecard?  Would you also say that the Road Hole is a bad par 4 because most gofers can't reach it in two, or because they have to play away from the bunker because of their mortal fear of it, or because once in the bunker they have to do the equivalent of re-teeing on #16, hitting the bunker shot over and over again until they get it right? 

What golfer as he steps up to the 16th tee at Cypress cares a whit about par?  I say if he executes the heroic shot and makes a 1, 2, 3, or 4, he will count himself lucky.  {On my own one try on a not-too-windy day, I hit a 5-wood onto the rocks and watched with glee as it ricocheted up onto the green, then I 3-putted.  I was thrilled.}

The hole is great because of all the things you and Jordan and Adam have identified.  Neither this nor any other hole worth studying should be measured for greatness against what we call it on the scorecard.

[TEPaul]

"I think a Biarritz on the 16th at Cypress is like putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa."


BobH:

When in Paris Patrick Mucci actually tried to put a mustache on the Mona Lisa and consequently spent two weeks in Paris rather than one week.

[TEPaul]

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



Actually, Patrick, it may not be long now before I can answer that question for you. I believe I am closing in on perhaps the most elusive and mysterious piece of architectural history out there. I have a lead that the design plan may've also had a "Lion's Mouth" green.

Did you know that Tommy Birdsong's Fernandina Beach Municipal once had a "North Florida Spotted Leopard's Mouth" green on it?

[Jed Rammell]

Patrick,

If you set out to confuse us about what exactly is a "Biarritz" hole, you seem to have succeeded.  I note that some commentators think the template is a heroic hole over a chasm, and some think it's a par 3 with a big swale in the green.  I couldn't imagine that you would be serious about suggesting a big swale in the green at Cypress #16, that's why I didn't bother to dismiss that suggestion as Adam did.  Please have pity on us lesser intellects and clear up your thinking as Tom Paul suggests.

Lou Duran, you said

"I think that #16 is actually not a very good par 3 ...  In effect...it plays more like a par 4 with still a not-so-easy forced carry."

Why in the world would you evaluate a hole like this with this discussion of its par on the scorecard?  Would you also say that the Road Hole is a bad par 4 because most gofers can't reach it in two, or because they have to play away from the bunker because of their mortal fear of it, or because once in the bunker they have to do the equivalent of re-teeing on #16, hitting the bunker shot over and over again until they get it right? 

What golfer as he steps up to the 16th tee at Cypress cares a whit about par?  I say if he executes the heroic shot and makes a 1, 2, 3, or 4, he will count himself lucky.  {On my own one try on a not-too-windy day, I hit a 5-wood onto the rocks and watched with glee as it ricocheted up onto the green, then I 3-putted.  I was thrilled.}

The hole is great because of all the things you and Jordan and Adam have identified.  Neither this nor any other hole worth studying should be measured for greatness against what we call it on the scorecard.

Eric, I agree that you can't evaluate the hole based on par, but if you evaluate it based on strategy, it still comes up short. You have two options; be a man, or be a Moriarty. At Riviera #10, you can hit mid iron to the fat of the fiarway, hit driver into the front bunker, hit driver left of the green, hit 3 wood left of the green, hit driver over the green, etc.

Regardless, if you told me I could pick one hole to play one time in my life, I'd pick Cypress #16. Maybe that is the criteria to base greatness on, strategy be damned.

[Adam Clayman]

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.
  

My speculated reason for what you are calling the most benign green was that he didn't want to detract from the unbelievable natural beauty.

Also, that rock outcrop is not like the dunes land of the 8th, 9th, 12th and 13th holes. An undulating green would feel out of place. And that's why a Biarittz would be out of place and a horrible aesthetic.

P.s. I might like to argue about the most benign green. After my one time, I recall at least one other. (Maybe the 10th?) But, again, it's getting on in years now, January 6th 2000. The day Spyglass Hill first won the cup.  

[Jordan Wall]

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.
  

P.s. I might like to argue about the most benign green. After my one time, I recall at least one other. (Maybe the 10th?) But, again, it's getting on in years now, January 6th 2000. The day Spyglass Hill first won the cup.  

Adam,

The sixteenth green is easily the most benign on the course.

Cheers,
Jordan

[Eric_Terhorst]

At Riviera #10, you can hit mid iron to the fat of the fiarway, hit driver into the front bunker, hit driver left of the green, hit 3 wood left of the green, hit driver over the green, etc.

As far as I can tell, you have now diminished two great holes by describing Riviera's 10th as a binary play--1) lay-up or 2) play near/on the green.  Get up on the wrong side today?

[Mike Benham]

Adam,

The sixteenth green is easily the most benign on the course.

Cheers,
Jordan

It is of my opinion that the 6th green is relatively benign (less tilt) but less so then 16 ...

[Jed Rammell]

At Riviera #10, you can hit mid iron to the fat of the fiarway, hit driver into the front bunker, hit driver left of the green, hit 3 wood left of the green, hit driver over the green, etc.

As far as I can tell, you have now diminished two great holes by describing Riviera's 10th as a binary play--1) lay-up or 2) play near/on the green.  Get up on the wrong side today?

No, but I must not have explained myself well enough. In my eyes, Cypress #16 is a binary play, but Riviera #10 has a ton of options off the tee, and the flag location dictates a multiple number of options off the tee, and when playing the approach. This is an outside view, as I've never played either hole.

[Jordan Wall]

Adam,

The sixteenth green is easily the most benign on the course.

Cheers,
Jordan

It is of my opinion that the 6th green is relatively benign (less tilt) but less so then 16 ...

Mike,

While the sixth does not have a lot of slope or contour, it is much harder to read than the sixteenth.  The green itself is almost flat, which is actually tough because it looks as if it slopes a good deal back to front.

I have seen a good amount of visitors blow a putt past going toward the back of the green, and leave a putt far short going toward the front of the green.

It is probably about as flat as the sixteenth, just much harder to read, in my opinion.  For that reason I consider the sixteenth more benign.

Cheers,
Jordan

[Bill Brightly]

Patrick,

Did you come up with this idea on your own? If yes, it was brilliant!

George Bahto's quote seems to make it pretty clear that Raynor routed a par 3 hole on this spot. If this is true, it seems obvious that he would have made it a Biarritz. Biarritz holes were always the longest one-shotter on his designs. What other type of green complex would you expect?

Another poster states that the only Biarritz holes with a carry over water are Yale and Fishers. Well, those are both Raynor designs completed just before he routed Cypress. So why WOULDN"T he be inclined to place his Biarritz there?

Lastly, I wish people would STOP stating that the swale would be in the middle of the green. Raynor did NOT build double-sized green with a swale in the middle, that is a very recent adaptation that many clubs are completing. Raynor would have built the swale IN FRONT of the putting green. (I just dont know how much landing area there would have been past the rocks.)

Jordan Wall, you would do well to stop using the term "template hole." Rather, Raynor used template FEATURES.

So MacKenzie comes on the project, sees the brilliance of a one shot hole over this carry, and builds a green complex that fits his style. Perfectly logical to me.

Can't wait to see if TEP comes up with the original plans!

[Patrick_Mucci]

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

George Bahto,

I've never believed that story, based on my experience/play of the 16th hole, a 230 yard par 3 with an heroic carry into an ocean breeze/wind.

In 1928, with hickories and a ball of questionable aerodynamic and compression qualities I find it hard to believe that Marion Hollins could outdrive me when I was using modern equipment and balls circa 1985-1995.  I find it hard to believe that Marion Hollins could outdrive me with any equipment, hence I'm dubious when it comes to accepting this story as factual, unless, she played from a forward tee.

I'd like to know who believes that Marion Hollins, using equipment circa 1928, could make that heroic carry from the back tee on a 230 yard par 3, with or without the wind and heavy ocean air as a factor ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Did you come up with this idea on your own? If yes, it was brilliant!

Yes, my twisted imagination was running rampant again last night.

The setting is PERFECT for a classic, true to the original Biarritz.

George Bahto's quote seems to make it pretty clear that Raynor routed a par 3 hole on this spot.
If this is true, it seems obvious that he would have made it a Biarritz.
Biarritz holes were always the longest one-shotter on his designs.
What other type of green complex would you expect?


Someone on this site indicated that they had either seen or perhaps had access to Raynor's routing.
If so, I would love to see it, as that site, where the current 16th sits, would certainly have caught Raynor's eye.
And, I would think that a Biarritz would have been his hole of choice for that site.
If someone has Raynor's routing, could they post it.


Another poster states that the only Biarritz holes with a carry over water are Yale and Fishers.
Well, those are both Raynor designs completed just before he routed Cypress.
So why WOULDN"T he be inclined to place his Biarritz there?


I too believe he would have been so inclined.

Lastly, I wish people would STOP stating that the swale would be in the middle of the green.
Raynor did NOT build double-sized green with a swale in the middle, that is a very recent adaptation that many clubs are completing. Raynor would have built the swale IN FRONT of the putting green.
(I just dont know how much landing area there would have been past the rocks.)

For the answer to your question, just go to courses by country and see Ran's write up with accompanying pictures.
You will note that not only is there some room in front, but, plenty of room in back, AND the back has an elevation change where bunkers were cut into it.  PERFECT for a Biarritz.

Jordan Wall, you would do well to stop using the term "template hole." Rather, Raynor used template FEATURES.

So MacKenzie comes on the project, sees the brilliance of a one shot hole over this carry, and builds a green complex that fits his style.
Perfectly logical to me.

Can't wait to see if TEP comes up with the original plans!

You're not the only one thirsting to see those plans

[George_Bahto]

Pat: Biarritz, France - played from an 80' cliff to a 50' cliff

also Dr Mac-  "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."

you're doubting the great MacKenzie you know


so you want to see the Raynor plan - ??   hah - been scouring for that for 15-years (along with the help of Shackleford - i did speak to a relative who saw the plan a good number of years ago - I believe what he told me but nothing about the 16th CP) , although others (no longer on this site) ridiculed this persons story

[David Stamm]

George Bahto's quote seems to make it pretty clear that Raynor routed a par 3 hole on this spot. If this is true, it seems obvious that he would have made it a Biarritz. Biarritz holes were always the longest one-shotter on his designs. What other type of green complex would you expect?


Bill, are you aware of another Biarritz that has this long of a carry? It wasn't George's quote, it was MacKenzie from Spirit of St Andrews. Nowhere is Raynor mentioned in the story and we don't know the context of the story of Hollins hitting the shot.

Another poster states that the only Biarritz holes with a carry over water are Yale and Fishers. Well, those are both Raynor designs completed just before he routed Cypress. So why WOULDN"T he be inclined to place his Biarritz there?

Bill, those holes are significatly shorter, no? I'm not sure it matters if he did those just before he visited the site or not, does it?

Lastly, I wish people would STOP stating that the swale would be in the middle of the green. Raynor did NOT build double-sized green with a swale in the middle, that is a very recent adaptation that many clubs are completing. Raynor would have built the swale IN FRONT of the putting green. (I just dont know how much landing area there would have been past the rocks.)

Bill, I'm not sure if you've been to CPC, but in my opinion, there is not room for the Biarritz type green that Raynor was building for that length of hole. It would've been an almost unreasonable proposition, again, JMO.

 
So MacKenzie comes on the project, sees the brilliance of a one shot hole over this carry, and builds a green complex that fits his style. Perfectly logical to me.


Can't wait to see if TEP comes up with the original plans!

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Stamm,

A look at # 16, from "Google Earth" would seem to indicate that there's adequate land to craft a Biarritz green.

Don't just context the hole from the "northern" tee.
There are shorter tees to the south of the back tee.

George Bahto,

I'm certainly not familiar with the permitting process in Monterey in 1928, but, is it possible that Raynor might have filed a preliminary plan/routing with the appropriate authority//ies.

Did Charlie Banks acquire all of Raynor's files and paperwork after Raynor's death in 1926 ?

[George_Bahto]

Permitting?? I don't need no stinkin permitting





Did Charlie Banks acquire all of Raynor's files and paperwork after Raynor's death in 1926 ?


certainly they were partners working out of NY City - but we have not been able to find them neither   .... yes, I've spoken to relatives

[Ronald Montesano]

1.  I'm not going to read all the entries, but I will say this...the green looks rather pie-shaped from google earth...would you/Raynor suggest a differently-shaped green to acquire the Biarritz contouring?  Would it have come down farther between the bunkers or extended deeper toward the 17th tees?  By my accounting, in spite of the original Biarritz being a chasm hole, it is the green that can be replicated anywhere (and has been), thus being the pre-eminent feature.

2.  I don't get anything from what Bahto quoted that suggests that a Biarritz was in the planning stages for that location.  It has always struck me as more of a "2 or 20" style hole than anything else.

3.  I don't get what is good about #18 at Pebble Beach.  The fairway seems ridiculously flat, it has a stupid tree in the middle of the fairway, a silly bunker fronting the green, no contouring whatsoever in the green site, and a flat putting surface.  If it weren't for the location, it would be completely vapid.  I have no intention of ever playing that hole and don't understand its allure.  Pick a hole from 6, 8, 9 10 at the same course and you have a better hole.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou Duran, you said

"I think that #16 is actually not a very good par 3 ...  In effect...it plays more like a par 4 with still a not-so-easy forced carry."

Why in the world would you evaluate a hole like this with this discussion of its par on the scorecard?  

Eric,

Before defending a caricatured position attributed to me, I need to ask you, are you Dr. Moriarty's newest prodigy?  Or do you work for Dead Fish in the White House?

As I've noted on this site before, I am hardly a purist.  In fact, though Dr. MacKenzie is probably my favorite gca, dead or alive, I probably fall closer to the "card and pencil" type he didn't seem to like than to the adventurous spirit his architecture was meant to excite.   But, having read both of the "Good Doctor's" books as well as Doak's (on the Dr.), and played a number of his courses, I think that what he wrote is at times contradictory and not all that congruent with what he put on the ground.

If par on a scorecard is of little importance, perhaps we should forgo its use altogether.  Of course, this is nonsense because without a point of comparison, a standard if you will, any discussion and analysis would be far less meaningful.  Without the concept of par, I wonder how an architect would even go about his work.

My primary point regarding CPC #16 is that if the cliffs were marked as most boundaries are, that the hole's claim to fame would be not its dreadful difficulty, but its remarkable natural beauty.  Its reputation today is as a round wrecker and not as a world-class example of a difficult, strategic par 3.  While marking the boundaries would probably reduce its already limited strategic merits, the current hole invites only limited options for many golfers- bold or very timid (notwithstanding Adam's hugely remarkable ability to play safe up against the edge of the cliff left of the green- which is still well short of hole high).  

BTW, here is some more GCA.com heresy, I am not a huge fan of the Road Hole nor Riviera's #10 grassed in kikuyu.  For good graces, I do like Tom Doak- the person and his courses- and think very highly of C & C's work as well  (though, here I go again, I give Crenshaw considerable greater credit to the partnership than our resident cognoscenti typical confer).  

[Rick Shefchik]

If Raynor did intend #16 to be a Biarritz, the golf world is lucky that Mackenzie finished the course. The physical dimensions of the site may be perfect for a Biarritz green, but I think it would have been a mistake.

I love biarritz greens. I love the 16th at Cypress. I also love strawberries and jambalaya, but I don't put strawberries in my jambalaya.

[V. Kmetz]

Lou:

I definitely think we should get rid of the concept of par altogether, it's no nonsense either.  I think the standard for good play was, is and always will be "Level Fours" for whatever the size of the course...6, 9, 12, 18 or 22 holes.  For an 18 hole course that results in a score of 72 - a score I have never heard anyone but the elite championship caliber player decry when they shot it and for four rounds that results in 288 another score that no one but the elites cry about in a championship tournament.

I look at every hole as a, "Puzzle for Four" from 0-700 yards.  A good course will have an equal number of nearly impossible puzzles, strenuous puzzles, average puzzles, and easier puzzles to achieve that end resulting in a total score for the entire course test.  That holds for medal play certainly, but even moreso for match play.  I think this concept is even accidentally endorsed by the individual handicap of holes by the course's governors. 

If I were to be entrusted with a golf course design, I would insist that a "Par" not be listed on the card - merely a yardage from the various tees and an aggregate from their total(s).  I think this pre-disposes the golfer to confined, fearful thinking before he even swings the club on a hole.

Cheers

vk

[Bob_Huntley]

Ronald M.,

You wrote

" I don't get what is good about #18 at Pebble Beach.  The fairway seems ridiculously flat, it has a stupid tree in the middle of the fairway, a silly bunker fronting the green, no contouring whatsoever in the green site, and a flat putting surface.  If it weren't for the location, it would be completely vapid.  I have no intention of ever playing that hole and don't understand its allure.  Pick a hole from 6, 8, 9 10 at the same course and you have a better hole.


Is there something wrong with a flat fairway? I seem to remember a goodly number in the various Top 100 tables.

Is the tree in the middle of the fairway any worse than the tree at the 18th at Cypress Point?

Please explain to me the inanity of the front bunker, I'm not sure why the animus toward it.

Have you ever putted the 18th hole at Pebble Beach? If you had, you might have discovered that  there are parts of the green with decided movement.


It's not the best 5 par in the world of golf by any means but to dismiss it so cavalierly seems somewhat strange to me.

Bob

[Bill Brightly]

If Raynor did intend #16 to be a Biarritz, the golf world is lucky that Mackenzie finished the course. The physical dimensions of the site may be perfect for a Biarritz green, but I think it would have been a mistake.

I love biarritz greens. I love the 16th at Cypress. I also love strawberries and jambalaya, but I don't put strawberries in my jambalaya.

Rick,
I think we get that you love Cypress Point, as does everyone. But there should be no doubt that you would have loved what Raynor would have built there. And his par 3 would have been world class because it is a word class place to build a golf hole.
 
The strawberries-jambalaya  analogy is therefore pretty senseless. You were getting strawberries OR jambalaya...no one was going to mix the two...

[Eric_Terhorst]

Before defending a caricatured position attributed to me, I need to ask you, are you Dr. Moriarty's newest prodigy?  

Confound it Sherlock, you've done it again!  I admit Dr. Moriarity and I are in league.  On this Halloween we have decided that going forward we will viciously caricature every position you take.   We'll reveal our true and full intentions on April Fool's Day next.

Or do you work for Dead Fish in the White House?

If you meant this as an insult, it is lost on me.  I have no idea what you're talking about.  And please, I beg you, don't explain it to me.  I hope you enjoyed writing it though!

Its reputation today is as a round wrecker and not as a world-class example of a difficult, strategic par 3. 

You insist on referring to par--why?  If you think it's a bad golf hole, why don't you just say "It's a bad hole because...."

Actually, I think its renown is founded on both the natural setting and the unique (to woefully understate it) opportunity it offers the golfer to make a heroic play. 

"Round wrecker"    You're playing Cypress Point.  Who gives a gnat's ass?

Excuse me, Dr. Moriarity is on the cell...

[Ronald Montesano]

Bob,

I think that my animus is toward the whole deification of Pebble Beach.  I get the great sense that there is a major imbalance to the course that should restrict it to the bottom five of the top ten at best.  There appears to be a number of average to weak holes on the course that, regardless of the value of the strong holes, is not found on other top five courses.  Golfweek seems to understand this, having dropped the course from 4 to 7 among classic courses only.  Golf Digest has it ranked 6th in the US out of all courses, which to me is very high.  Golf Magazine is the worst, having it at number 5, albeit down one from the last ranking.  From what I gather, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are average to nondescript holes, as are 12, 13 and 15.  That would be 7 out of 18 holes on a top five course?  Unacceptable.

My problem with the 18th hole is that it is the ocean that deserves the reverence, not the golf hole.  I have not putted the hole, but it does not confound in the way that an 18th hole should.  All in all, I think that MacKenzie, Travis, Tillinghast and Ross would have all done a better job with the property than did Neville and Grant.