[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.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I am sure all his friends called him "Little Billy" no?

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,   I think we are in agreement that the latter BB's bunkers didn't necessarily work exceptionally well anywhere.  Ocean side or not.  

But then your comparison/contrast makes no sense.  It seems you need to come up with someone whose bunker style worked in some places but did not transfer well from site to site, particularly from an inland site to ocean side site.  Otherwise I fail to grasp your point about site specificity.  

Feel free to start a new thread if you think it merits one.

[TEPaul]

Mr. Jeffrey:

If you feel it is good for you to accept the bunkers surrounding the 16th green of CPC without further analysis or that it is your feeling there is nothing that will improve upon this hole without them there, then that is what you should think and feel and you should just be done with it. It is certainly not for me to tell you what works best for you psychologically, visually, aesthetically or emotionally with this hole or any other.

On the other hand, I have to deal with my own feelings of this hole psychologically, visually, aesthetically and emotional, and there is something about the nature of that landform that tells me that hole would be even better than it already is in those areas listed above if there were no bunkers surrounding that green. Furthermore, I do not feel it minimizes or denigrates my respect for Alister Mackenzie as perhaps the best or most interesting golf architect in history if I disagree with what he did with bunkers on this hole.

"Golf and golf course architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone." (The Big World Theory)

OR, to translate the aforementioned "Big World Theory" itself into the similar musings of another famous and significant architect, and luckily even on the specific subject of what anyone thinks of bunkers on any particular hole, I give you the following counsel from many years ago:

"I should also like to suggest that the construction of bunkers on various courses should have an individuality entirely of their own which should arouse the love or hatred of intelligent golfers. Rest assured such holes are far too complex for one's absolute condemnation or absolute approval. Bunkers of this character are much to be desired."

So all I can say to that is----"With the bunkers surrounding the 16th hole at CPC, not in my opinion, Charlie and Allie!"

Mr. Jeffrey, actually the green and the bunkering on this particular hole is what prompted Charlie to say to Alister when Charlie first saw this magnificent natural landform and hole:

"That putting green reminds me of a pie-faced woman and those bunkers remind me not of clouds but of marcel waves. The entire composition makes the very soul of golf shriek, in my opinion. Had poor Seth not died so suddenly I'm convinced he would have done one of our Template Biarritz holes from France and North Berwick on this dramatic piece of California coast."

[Mike Hendren]

Mr. Benham has it correct - the bunker I was referring to is more of a direct carry bunker, located at 3 o'clock in David's aerial:



It is not the bunker where the flag was placed in Rick's photograph.

I was looking at  Forrest Richardson's routing print that hangs in my office when I started the thread.  

Without that bunker the fairway line hugging the shore would extend right up to the putting surface.

David, I only hope the Hendren tee is low enough to make the approach blind.

MIke

[Mike Hendren]

Also, while I have no problem with Ms. Miller's ear-lobes, it's pretty obvious by the black roots that she dyes her hair.

Mike

[David Stamm]

It is not the bunker where the flag was placed in Rick's photograph.

 

Michael, I thought the title of the thread indicated front right bunker?

[Mike Hendren]

David, it depends on where you're standing.

Indeed I should have been more accurate.

[DMoriarty]

Mr. Benham has it correct - the bunker I was referring to is more of a direct carry bunker, located at 3 o'clock in David's aerial:

Didn't Mr. Benham say that the bunker was not front-right, but rather mid-green?   I presume he was talking about the right bunker, which is about mid-green, depth-wise.

If you are treating the bunker at three o'clock as a "direct carry bunker" then I think you are aiming too far left, unless you are barely trying to catch the left edge of the green.  Had the distance been correct for a middle or back pin you would have brought both the next bunker and the Lou Duran's favorite beach into play.    

Without that bunker the fairway line hugging the shore would extend right up to the putting surface.

Not sure what you mean by this, but looking at the old photographs, I think that the makings of the original bunker may have been there naturally, and was very much into the edge of the area that is now fairway, sloped steeply down toward the ocean.  And there used to be a bunch of natural sand below it the bunker all the way to the ocean, and maybe even a lower step of sand.  

So if the architecture was originally poor, it may have been the fault of Mackenzie's boss.  No, not Marion Hollins.

That being said, I am not positive but I think that, over the years, that bunker may have migrated a bit toward the green (and/or visa versa) and may have moved a bit more inland.  

To me that bunker works great because it makes me think there is more land there (just left of the green) than there really is.  You cannot almost go for that green, but the bunker makes it look like you can (to me at least)  A nice illusion. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Whether or not you think it's poor, or even if you think you could do "better", I'd say you'd have to admit it remains relatively unchanged since its inception.

Too bad its neighbor, the 7th at PB, can't say the same.


   http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1934/ag375l.pdf

[Bill_McBride]

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

This might be the most polite post ever posted on this web site!  Thank you, Mr. Brauer, for injecting a modicum of cordiality into these proceeedings!  It makes me very thankful.......

[David Stamm]

Whether or not you think it's poor, or even if you think you could do "better", I'd say you'd have to admit it remains relatively unchanged since its inception.

Too bad its neighbor, the 7th at PB, can't say the same.


   http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1934/ag375l.pdf

Keep in mind, Jim. The 7th at PB as portrayed in that pciture is not the original version. But it is the best version, IMHO.

[Mike Hendren]

David, that aerial is most helpful.  Thanks for posting it and your comments.

Mike

[Sean_A]

Mr. Jeffrey:

If you feel it is good for you to accept the bunkers surrounding the 16th green of CPC without further analysis or that it is your feeling there is nothing that will improve upon this hole without them there, then that is what you should think and feel and you should just be done with it. It is certainly not for me to tell you what works best for you psychologically, visually, aesthetically or emotionally with this hole or any other.

On the other hand, I have to deal with my own feelings of this hole psychologically, visually, aesthetically and emotional, and there is something about the nature of that landform that tells me that hole would be even better than it already is in those areas listed above if there were no bunkers surrounding that green. Furthermore, I do not feel it minimizes or denigrates my respect for Alister Mackenzie as perhaps the best or most interesting golf architect in history if I disagree with what he did with bunkers on this hole.

That about sums it up for me.  What did that spot look like before the funky bunkers were put in?  For that matter, what did the original bunkers look like?  Nah, on second thought, this hole doesn't need to be framed.  It has the biggest frame in the world already. 

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
The land form looked pretty much the same, minus the bunkers. Back a few posts you'll see a link that shows the course in the 1930's and it's pretty much the same then as now, like it or not.

[TEPaul]

"What did that spot look like before the funky bunkers were put in?"



That's probably a landform that has looked the same for eons. There's a photo of it from 1886 and even though it was taken from maybe 400 yards away one can see the landform hasn't changed much.

I've always felt that given the challenge for anyone of carrying the ball that length straight at that green, the additional option of a big greenspace or short grass "kickup" behind the present green and at the base of where those rear bunkers are would've been interesting as well as a more natural look on that landform (essentially it would look not much different from that 1886 photogrpah). I also think given the scale of that landform and that setting a big green space "kickup" behind the present green would make the green bigger both actually and visually from the tee which seems appropriate given the massive scale out there. But as good as that hole is and always has been, the main reason I've always thought it would be an even better hole aesthetically without being surrounded by those sand bunkers on that fairly rocky promontory is sand bunkers seem sort of aesthetically or artistically incongruous to me on that particular magnificent coastal promontory.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()