next »

[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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob Huntley,

Explaining # 18 at Pebble Beach, and the entire golf course at Pebble Beach, to someone who has never played it is like explaining sex to someone who has never had it.  It can't be done.  And, even if it could, they couldn't appreciate it.

# 18 is a terrific par 5.

Pebble Beach is a GREAT golf course.

Nothing more needs to be said.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Pat, yet another example of review/opinion by picture or following the herd.  Not worth rebutting.

[Bob_Huntley]

Ronald M.,

You wrote:

"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. "


When you say that you have never putted the hole, it would seem that you have never played the hole or even seen the hole except on television. To express such disdain for the 18th with such limited experience reeks of hubris. Neville and Grant gave us a superb golf course and I am not so sure that Ross would have done better; he did wonderful work but also produced a bunch of clunkers.


Bob
 
 
 

[Ronald Montesano]

Kevin, exactly the opposite.  The herd believes that Pebble Beach is a magnificent golf course because of what it has read in print and seen on television.  And, as you'll find on this site, everything is worth rebutting.  That is what makes it an intellectual adventure.

Patrick, sometimes the playing of the course is the letdown.  Do you believe it is a consistent golf course?  Do you believe that the weak holes take away from the strong holes?

Bob, I don't discount the infusion of hubris in my arguments.  I do agree that the playing of the course, as Patrick suggests, puts all doubts to rest, tucked away under a blanket. 

You are also correct about Ross and I will admit that as I typed his name, the exact thought crossed my mind.  However (more hubris) I kept him in as four names somehow seemed better than three.

From my perspective there are at least two ways to elicit response:  one is to meekly pose a question along the lines of "Is Pebble Beach quite possibly a bit unbalanced" while the other is to charge ahead, steed foaming, lance aimed, with "I OUTRIGHT SUGGEST THAT PEBBLE BEACH IS UNBALANCED!!"  I find that the latter evokes greater passion (and verbiage) in the response.  I am most impressed with Bob's responses, as they focus on specific points.  Patrick's responses, ehhh...more supportive and more generic...maybe a little more needs to be said.  Kevin's response is a non-response.  Can you do better, Kevin?

[David Stamm]

Ronald, you do know that 18 as we know it today is not the work of Neville and Grant, right?

[TEPaul]

"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."


Lou:

I think you've got that exactly right. The truth is what most of those guys actually wrote compared to what they actually put on the ground would lead one to believe most all those guys lied through their teeth and they knew they were lying through their teeth when they wrote some of the stuff they did.

I find the only one who wrote it like he saw it and did it was Max Behr. For instance, he seemed to be the only one who actually wrote defending blindness (and explained well why he thought it could be benefical) while everyone else panned it in print but still did it on the ground! 

[Kalen Braley]

Ronald,

I couldn't agree more with the comments from Bob, Pat, et all.  The 18th is a terrific hole and I'm baffled that you would summarily dimiss it without even setting foot on it, or at least viewing it from behind the Lodge.  I described its several playing strategies in another recent thread, but can't find it.  As for its location, no doubt it adds to the hole... but then again a hole and its surroundings cannot be seperated and any architect who doesn't use a terrific setting to enhance a course is borderline crazy!! 

P.S  That green is anything but flat...as Bob says quite a few parts of it has a ton of break.

[Ronald Montesano]

David, I did not know that.  Could you elaborate for me?

Kalen, could you retell the different strategies for its play?

Thanks to both of you.

[Ronald Montesano]

And I do apologize for having hijacked this thread.  I've complained about such felonious acts in the past and look!  I'm culpable.

[Kalen Braley]

David, I did not know that.  Could you elaborate for me?

Kalen, could you retell the different strategies for its play?

Thanks to both of you.

Ronald I found the comments I made on the Risk/Reward nature of the hole:

On the tee shot - One can "risk" challenging the hazard and bite off more by going left.  The "reward" is a shorter shot in that will also avoid the trees inteferring on the 2nd shot.

On the approach shot - One can also "risk" challenging the ocean again to either go for the green and/or being in better position for the 3rd shot in.  The "rewards" are either being on in 2 or having a shorter approach in and far enough left so the greenside tree does not stymie the next shot.

So throw in that one can easily make anywhere from 3-8 on the hole.....and then consider its sublime location with all the aethistics like the ocean on the left, terrific views, the seals barking along the shoreline, waves breaking on the rocks, etc, etc...and it indeed makes for one of the finest finishes in all of golf IMO.

[Adam Clayman]

Ronald, The difference between the top half of the top ten and the bottom half, only matters to those who have a vested interest. In reality the difference is minimal.

As for Pebble Beach as a whole. It spits in the face of those bean counters who judge a golf course hole by hole. There are quite a few of the top courses that I have played that have just as many holes that on the surface are not great when stood alone. Rather the quality exudes from the mix, the route, and the feeling one has after playing the whole that one can quantify for themselves, a courses greatness.
,
I can assure you that Pebble beach is one of the few courses that does not disappoint. Even after all the expectations that come from what others opinions have laid out for decades.

BTW, The fairway is not flat either. It is subtle but not flat.

The green has no flat spot that I know of. The back side of the fronting right bunker creates an almost punchbowl like affect for the front right quadrant. There is a vertical spine left center that extends almost the entire depth of the green, and, the entire right side slopes hard towards the front. Even on slower Poa annua greens a forty foot putt from one side of the green to other will have at least five feet of break. More like 8. How do I know that? Through repeated play and watching up close many people play the hole.

The hole tempts and teases on every shot. The greens apparent flatness illustrates an artists ability to fool the lazy observer while rewarding those diligent in spacial awareness.


One of the reasons Pebble has slide on the GW list, IMO, are the changes made to significant holes such as the 3rd, the 5th, and 15th.

In anticipation... The 15th is a significant hole in the ebb and flow of that course. It WAS an opportunity for the better player to get one more birdie before the difficulty ahead and for the weaker golfer to have a chance at a par. Something he/she may not have had a chance to do for many many holes, or, for the remainder. How do I know that? It was experience on my first time around the grand layout.

[Ronald Montesano]

Adam and Kalen,

Thanks for the analysis of the various elements of the course.  There is no doubt that the subtleties of the course reveal themselves to the repeat player.  Those observations and strategies are exactly what I needed to eliminate my doubts about the validity of the hole.  While I don't believe that one is necessarily exempt from dismissing a hole's worth without having played it, I do believe that one can add to much to the credibility of a hole by playing it repeatedly (familiarity doesn't always breed contempt.)

I am interested to learn, as David Stamm alluded, how the course changed from what Neville and Grant designed to its present condition.

[Adam Clayman]

Ronald, As I understand it, Egan changed the hole from a par 4 to a 5. There are better historians than my weak recollection. Hopefully they can fill us all in on exactly what transpired.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

As to the story of Marion Hollins hitting that brassie shot on #16 the story says she hit it from a bit less than 200 yards. Maybe you don't know that much about Marion Hollins (have you ever read her biography?) but that kind of thing was definitely doable for her---eg she was sort of unimaginatively long. And frankly back in that day pretty much the way they did length designing (and particularly across a body of water was to just do shot testing. So Marion did it on that hole rather than someone else, big deal, so what? What's so hard to believe about that?


Furthermore, about that so-called Raynor design or routing, I wonder if that even was a fact. The same stories that involve Marion hitting that shot say that Raynor had done some "preliminary plans" whatever that means.

Also, it seems that whole club and course was a whole lot more Marion Hollins than most people might realize. Apparently she had some kind of option on it; maybe not on the land (didn't Morse own that?) but on the club itself. Marion was certainly the one responsible for generating CPC's membership and apparently more of the course itself than most might realize. That lady seemed to have thousands of friends all over the place and hundreds of them in some very high places.

Marion Hollins was one of the most unique and remarkable women in many ways I have ever heard of. What an athlete she was not just in golf but in some other things (perhaps the best woman polo player ever known). Apparently in golf her young friend Babe Zaharias was in awe of her.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

As to the story of Marion Hollins hitting that brassie shot on #16 the story says she hit it from a bit less than 200 yards.

Maybe you don't know that much about Marion Hollins (have you ever read her biography?) but that kind of thing was definitely doable for her---eg she was sort of unimaginatively long.

Compared to whom ?

Please, stop with the foolishness.

In 1928 she couldn't outhit Ran Morrissett.

And frankly back in that day pretty much the way they did length designing (and particularly across a body of water was to just do shot testing.
So Marion did it on that hole rather than someone else, big deal, so what? What's so hard to believe about that?


Have you ever played the hole ?

You couldn't make that carry with the ball and equipment circa 1928.
The story is a fabrication, unless she hit from the tee south of the current back tee.

Furthermore, about that so-called Raynor design or routing, I wonder if that even was a fact.
The same stories that involve Marion hitting that shot say that Raynor had done some "preliminary plans" whatever that means.


It's more probable that Raynor provided "preliminary plans" versus Hollins making that carry with a strong fairway wood.
You've seen stick routings.
You've seen them at Merion and other courses, including GCGC.
They are the most rudimentary form, so I'd imagine that "preliminary plans" were at least stick routings and perhaps far more detailed.

Also, it seems that whole club and course was a whole lot more Marion Hollins than most people might realize.
Apparently she had some kind of option on it; maybe not on the land (didn't Morse own that?) but on the club itself.
Marion was certainly the one responsible for generating CPC's membership and apparently more of the course itself than most might realize. That lady seemed to have thousands of friends all over the place and hundreds of them in some very high places.


That's got nothing to do with her ability or inability to hit a tee shot from the back tee to the green on # 16 at CPC with a ball and equipment in 1928.
It's a myth.

Marion Hollins was one of the most unique and remarkable women in many ways I have ever heard of.
What an athlete she was not just in golf but in some other things (perhaps the best woman polo player ever known).
Apparently in golf her young friend Babe Zaharias was in awe of her.

No one is disputing that she was talented, in sports and finance.

What is being disputed is that she hit a fairway wood from the back tee on to the green at # 16 at CPC in 1928.

I've seen good ball strikers come up short with drivers, hence my skepticism that she made the carry from the back tee in 1928 with a ball and equipment from that year.

Next you'll be teling me how she outhit John Daly using a featherie and niblick

[Sean Leary]

Adam C,

Do you really think the changes have caused it to fall? While I don't love some of the changes, it shouldn't affect PB's ratings to any significant extent, IMO.

[David Stamm]

I am interested to learn, as David Stamm alluded, how the course changed from what Neville and Grant designed to its present condition.

Ronald, Herbert Fowler changed the 18th to a par 5 and follows the basic route that we know today. Neville and Grant had originally deisgned the hole as a par 4, with the tee much further to the right, basically where the grandtands are for the 17th during competitions. The ocean was not nearly in play then. Chandler Egan came in later and redid the green and added/redid bunkers around the green, but Fowler is the one that is repsonsible for the hole we know today. Technology has actually made the hole even more interesting because the hole is actually reachable now for long hitters, something unimaginable at one time. It is a truly great hole and I would urge you to play it at least once in your life. There are fews walks as special as the 18th as the sun is setting.

[TEPaul]

"Have you ever played the hole ?"


Pat:

Of course I have.


"You couldn't make that carry with the ball and equipment circa 1928.
The story is a fabrication, unless she hit from the tee south of the current back tee."


I probably couldn't but I probably never could hit a golf ball as far as Marion Hollins. The story goes that she hit that shot from a bit less than 200 yards with her brassie and if you actually think or are using the rationale you appear to be on here that the story is a fabrication and that Marion Hollins couldn't hit a brassie 200 yards (the back tee is over 230 yards, so where did you come up with the imbecilic idea that she hit that shot from the back tee since there weren't even any tees on the course when she hit that shot? ) you basically have your head and mind where the sun don't shine!


By the way, Patrick, if you've ever bothered to read Marion Hollins's biography there's a photo in it of her hitting the first tee shot on Pasatiempo. If you know anything about swing dynamics you should check out that particular photo, and if you do also pay close attention to her size!  

As Bob Huntley (who arguably knows more about all things to do with the history of CPC, including Marion, than the rest of us on here combined) has sort of alluded to in the past, it is more than just possible that Marion might have been about half-man anyway!  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I just checked out that photo again of Marion Hollins hitting her first tee shot on the opening day at Pasatiempo and I got to tell you having basically personally seen most all the best lady golfers for the last sixty years (my dad knew all of them particularly from his years at Spalding) that Marion who is right at the top of her backswing in that photo has the most powerful looking swing dynamics I have ever seen with a women by a factor of about 3! Check out that photo and I think even you might begin to see what I mean! 

[David Stamm]

Patrick:

I just checked out that photo again of Marion Hollins hitting her first tee shot on the opening day at Pasatiempo and I got to tell you having basically personally seen most all the best lady golfers for the last sixty years (my dad knew all of them particularly from his years at Spalding) that Marion who is right at the top of her backswing in that photo has the most powerful looking swing dynamics I have ever seen with a women by a factor of about 3! Check out that photo and I think even you might begin to see what I mean! 

Wow, Tom. 3 times more than Joyce Wethered, Glenna Collett Vare or Mickey Wright?