next »

[Michael_Hendren]

I ask because I have played the hole twice in pretty strong wind and hit driver into that bunker both times.  Mid-flight, both caddies exclaimed "golf shot."

[Tom_Doak]

Did you make three?

[Joe Hancock]

I ask because I have played the hole twice in pretty strong wind and hit driver into that bunker both times.  Mid-flight, both caddies exclaimed "golf shot."

And they didn't say that on your other 109 shots?  

Sorry. I haven't played the hole, and don't have an answer. Was it the wind that changed things?

Joe

[Rick Shefchik]

From this angle, it looks like your golf shots would have missed the green anyway. As I recall, this is the angle from the tee. Maybe a draw riding the wind would have kicked onto the green if the bunker weren't there, but I don't see it as bad architecture.

[Donal OCeallaigh]

So the caddies were wrong

[Philippe Binette]

The bunkers behind the green, especially the right one are... dissappointing, to be polite

[Jeff Spittel]

Only on this site could you find somebody to criticize that hole.

That's like complaining about Marissa Miller's right earlobe.

[Mike Benham]

I ask because I have played the hole twice in pretty strong wind and hit driver into that bunker both times.  Mid-flight, both caddies exclaimed "golf shot."

I wouldn't define that bunkers as "Front right" ... it is mid-green ...

Which way was the wind blowing?

[David Stamm]

Only on this site could you find somebody to criticize that hole.

 

+1. 

[Bill_McBride]

Bogey, are you seriously complaining about safely clearing the chasm twice?

 

I have played there twice and hit four balls into the ocean.  All four were hit pretty solid.

 

Congratulations on your success.  If you'd prefer to think of it as bad architecture, well okay!

[Tim Bert]

I ask because I have played the hole twice in pretty strong wind and hit driver into that bunker both times.  Mid-flight, both caddies exclaimed "golf shot."

Sounds like you should consider laying up.

[Michael_Hendren]

Did you make three?

Nope - par.

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,

I'm becoming even more curious about your critique, only because, so far, you've based the criticism on your own(two) results. I think you're leading up to something, so I'm wondering how your ball ended up in the bunker when it was:

a) on line during most of it's flight?
b) off line but working towards the correct line?
c) a thing of beauty, regardless of line?
d) none of the above

Looking forward to further insights,

Joe

[Michael_Hendren]

Big wind coming from the right.  First time his a big high shot that was blown left into the bunker.  Second time a low cut.  As for direction, neither was more than a few paces off line.

I never SAID it was bad architecture - I just wondered why the architect felt compelled to effective extend the dramatic carry a few yards through the use of the bunker and thereby also eliminate any run-up option, however narrow it might be.  

Mike

[Michael_Hendren]

I ask because I have played the hole twice in pretty strong wind and hit driver into that bunker both times.  Mid-flight, both caddies exclaimed "golf shot."

And they didn't say that on your other 109 shots?  

Sorry. I haven't played the hole, and don't have an answer. Was it the wind that changed things?

Joe

Come on Joe - the best kept secret on GCA is how easy Cypress Point Club is.  Heck, even I shot 85 without playing well.

Mike

[Michael_Hendren]

Jeff and David,  what do you like about the bunker?

Who is Marissa Miller?

[Pete Lavallee]

Mr. Hendren,

Should Sunday School teachers really try to play the role of curmudgeon? Frankly this persona doesn't suit you well. The answer to your question is that the hole is all about excitement. Granted one should be thrilled to carry the Ocean; apparently thay wasn't enough for you. Next time when you clear both the Ocean and  the bunkers I hope it will take several weeks to wipe the smile off your face.

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,

So what you're really asking is "would the 16th at CP have more play options if the front right bunker didn't exist and, perhaps, the land was shaped such that a shot landing there might feed onto the green?"

Is that close?

BTW, I think it would take a lot more study and familiarity with the specifics of the land and wind for me to offer a valid opinion on that.

Joe

[Bill_McBride]

Jeff and David,  what do you like about the bunker?

Who is Marissa Miller?

Marissa Miller, Victoria's Secret model:



How'd she get in this discussion?  But thanks anyway, Bogey man!

[Michael_Hendren]

Mr. Hendron,

Should Sunday School teachers really try to play the role of curmudgeon? Frankly this persona doesn't suit you well. The answer to your question is that the hole is all about excitement. Granted one should be thrilled to carry the Ocean; apparently thay wasn't enough for you. Next time when you clear both the Ocean and  the bunkers I hope it will take several weeks to wipe the smile off your face.

Pete, any thread - however ridiculous - that draws  you out of the shadows is a good one my friend.  I hope you're still striping it like you did during our round together at Cuscowilla a few years ago.  

My second try at the 16th was a boring cut shot that knocked the pin down, only to catch the very top edge of the bunker.  When I looked up to see it in flight - it was perhaps my most thrilling moment in 40 years of playing the game.  I'm still smiling as I type this, so don't worry about me.  

Kindest regards,

Mike

[Bill_McBride]

Only on this site could you find somebody to criticize that hole.

That's like complaining about Marissa Miller's right earlobe.

Got it, missed that.  Google is a wonderful thing.

[Rick Shefchik]

My second try at the 16th was a boring cut shot that knocked the pin down, only to catch the very top edge of the bunker.  When I looked up to see it in flight - it was perhaps my most thrilling moment in 40 years of playing the game.  I'm still smiling as I type this, so don't worry about me.  

Mike,

I think I've got it now. The second time you played it, the hole location must have been here:

[wwhitehead]

Seriously: If you'd pulled both shots 5 yards left and they'd ended up on the green, would the hole would be a flawless one?

WW

[Mac Plumart]

Soley by looking at the pictures and other pictures I have seen of Cypress Point's 16th hole, I can say with 100% certainty that it is my opinion that this hole is flawless and wonderful. 

Anyone who has a chance to be played it should feel honored and privaleged.  Seriously.  Take a look at that thing!  Oh my!!!

I don't care if I made a 10, perhaps it would be because I was in awe of the holes sheer beauty, terrifying carry, etc.

Stunning hole!!

[Jim_Kennedy]

I've been reading this topic and I still can't figure out how any of the bunkering around this hole fails? I'm looking at them and I'm thinking that they actually help to entice a player away from taking the safe(r) route to the left, i.e., their placement slyly suggesting  the green as 'pocket' and the sand as 'fingers' of a big ol' baseball glove.

 

 

[Adam Clayman]

My second try at the 16th was a boring cut shot that knocked the pin down, only to catch the very top edge of the bunker.  When I looked up to see it in flight - it was perhaps my most thrilling moment in 40 years of playing the game.  I'm still smiling as I type this, so don't worry about me.  

Kindest regards,

Mike

Perhaps if it's edges were a bit frillier, you would've had a chance, as random as nature's nature, to hit one of the frills, trickled out onto the green and into the hole. I suppose then it would be the greatest hole ever because you scored so well?

I say definitively the bunker is not bad architecture just because of your story. Anything that could fool the caddies who have to dredge, day after day, over the same piece of ground, do the same sucking up, to the amazed guests, exudes a randomness that can fool or trick the most familiar, is quality shit.

[TEPaul]

"The bunkers behind the green, especially the right one are... dissappointing, to be polite."


Phillippe:

I'm very curious to know specifically why you said that? Are you disappointed in them because you don't like how they are placed strategically or perhaps you don't like the shapes or look of them or is it that you just don't like sand bunkers at all on an incredibly magnificent natural landform like that on which it sure doesn't look as if sand like that was naturally occuring as it was on most of the rest of the site?

I'm very curious to know because I have always felt that way about those bunkers on that hole and perhaps even some or all of them on the next hole which also seems to be such a magnificent natural landform on which sand may not have been naturally occuring as it was on most of the rest of the site. Particularly those bunkers in the middle of the fairway (#17) that have always been surrounded by trees as is the huge bunker field on the right of the fairway on #18.

Mackenzie is arguably my favorite architect and I just love all the actual and psychological ramifications and applications of his ideas of the overall use of camouflage principles in golf course architecture and certainly on most all the holes leading up to the last 4-5 where there was so much naturally occuring sand but on #16, as great a hole as it truly is (and naturally), as well as perhaps on #17 and even #15, it seems like his prevalent use of dramatic sand bunkers on those holes is sort of artistic over-loading.

I'm not questioning the strategic use of them, just the aesthetic use of them on otherwise truly remarkable natural landforms which might be a part of that overall site that was far more rocky naturally than sandy.

On the other hand, if Mackenzie used those large and artisitically dramatic bunkers surrounding #16 green in some "art principle" attempt to draw the golfer's eye to the most important part (the green)-----eg this is essentially the "art" principle of "Emphasis"----to draw the observer's eye to the most important part of the artistic composition----I think that is both unnecessary to do and golf architectural overkill as well on a landform as naturally remarkable and magnificent as that one was and is.

[Jeff_Brauer]

To be honest, in my one time there and from memory, I always thought there were only 4 bunkers around that green!  The bunker in question is very flat and visual sliver compared to the others.  In that sense, I think you could remove it or leave it and it would still be the exact same hole, which is to say the best par 3 in the world.

[TEPaul]

Mr Jeffery Brauer, Sir:

I agree with that last sentence of yours but my feeling is----if all the sand bunkers surrounding that hole were removed (or better yet never built) that hole would still be the best par 3 in the world, and it probably would be even more visually and psychologically appealing or interesting and/or challenging; at least to me!

For many years I've felt that the whole idea of sand bunkers on golf course sites that were not naturally sandy is something that got to be almost an architectural standard of some kind and very likely an artistic (stylistic) and perhaps even strategic crutch to far too many golf architects----frankly probably to most!

Dialing down on the use or more appropriately the massive over-use of sand bunkers on naturally non-sandy sites and the replacement of them for strategic or even artistic and stylistic reasons with some other feature more aesthetically appropriate in a "natural" context kind of way has always been of real interest to me and perhaps even an interesting and effective direction for the future of golf course architecture.

I think there has even been a very general feeling with both architects and golfers that the amount of bunkers on a golf course is of some direct correlation to the quality or excellence of the golf course and I think that general feeling can be very easily documented in the words of some of the most significant and respected golf architects in the history of the business.

[David Stamm]

Michael, et al. Look at the photo of the hole and ask yourself how that bunker interacts w/ what the player sees from the tee? How does it "tie in" with the rest of the features of the hole?

[DMoriarty]

My second try at the 16th was a boring cut shot that knocked the pin down, only to catch the very top edge of the bunker.  When I looked up to see it in flight - it was perhaps my most thrilling moment in 40 years of playing the game.  I'm still smiling as I type this, so don't worry about me.  

Mike,

I think I've got it now. The second time you played it, the hole location must have been here:

Rick,

Let's be fair.  He could have been teeing off on the little known and ultra-exclusive Hendren tee.   Not as exciting a shot, but very exciting to get there.  I think I have a photo of it somewhere . . .

[Jeff_Brauer]

To the esteemed Mr. Tom Paul, Sir,

Whilst there are more intelligent gents than myself, I am having trouble reconciling your comments in the two previous posts and the deeper meaning you attribute to them.  In one, you say the Good Doctor is one of your favorite architects and in the other, good sir, you question the very essence of his style.  For one as simplistic as my self, I would say to follow your eyes and ignore the tendency to over analyze, good sir.  If you like the look of something, you like the look.  

Using the example of the oh so fine Ms. Milller posted above, I doubt any red blooded male would waste months debating over the deeper meanng of the aestheics before thy own eyes, would they?  Some things, good sir, are meant to be visual treats and that is quite sufficient to warrant their place in the universe!  I believe the 16t at Cypress Point is one of those, and deserves or requires very little additional thought.

If one were to question the placement of one bunker, as MH has, it's futile.  My own comments prove that perhaps any single element of that hole that is man made could be removed because of its natural hazards, so in that sense I agree, good sir.  But, I still oppose any attempt to delve deeper in this case.

IF I delved deeper, it would be to analyze why the Good Doctor's "inland bunker style" seems to work so well on an ocean front site, vs. say Billy Bell at the former Torrey Pines (or even Rees at the new Torrey Pines)  Does not the good doctors's style translate well there, and at most places?  What does that say about site specific designs vs. the general, man made style of Mac bunkers?

Points to ponder on this pre Thanksgiving weekend. I am just thankful that we had the Good Doctors work to play and enjoy.

Cheers!

Mr. Jeffrey D. Brauer

[DMoriarty]

IF I delved deeper, it would be to analyze why the Good Doctor's "inland bunker style" seems to work so well on an ocean front site, vs. say Billy Bell at the former Torrey Pines (or even Rees at the new Torrey Pines)  Does not the good doctors's style translate well there, and at most places?  What does that say about site specific designs vs. the general, man made style of Mac bunkers?

I'm confused, or maybe you are.  Which Bell are you talking about?   Because I don't think Bell Sr. had anything to do with the bunker style at Torrey Pines. (I believe he was dead when the course was built.)   If you are referring to Bell Jr., then I don't know that his "inland bunker style" worked all that well anywhere, at least not in comparison to his father.

[Jeff_Brauer]

My good Mr. Moriarity,

Since I didn't specifically say BB "Sr" why would you get confused by attributing the bunkers at TP to him?  You are correct that the Jr style was not effective, at least to my eye.  That was my point. Recently, I wrote that some styles work on some sites, as in would Paciric Dunes look the same with a "standard style" golf course up against the ocean.

On the other hand, the more or less standard Mac style seems to work quite well despite a spectacular site.  Maybe this deserves its own thread.

Have a good day!

Jeffrey D. Brauer

[David Stamm]

My good Mr. Moriarity,

Since I didn't specifically say BB "Sr" why would you get confused by attributing the bunkers at TP to him?  You are correct that the Jr style was not effective, at least to my eye.  That was my point. Recently, I wrote that some styles work on some sites, as in would Paciric Dunes look the same with a "standard style" golf course up against the ocean.

On the other hand, the more or less standard Mac style seems to work quite well despite a spectacular site.  Maybe this deserves its own thread.

Have a good day!

Jeffrey D. Brauer

David was probably confused because of the "Billy" moniker that you used. Sr was known as Billy. WFB was not really known by that name.