Could A Different Cypress Point Have Been Better?

[Tim_Weiman]

Let me go out on a limb and risk the wrath of Alister Mackenzie fans.

From time to time we speculate about how famous venues might have been routed differently, perhaps even better.

So, I got to thinking about the case of Cypress Point.  Specifically, I wondered what might have been done if Samuel Morse and Marion Hollins had secured more land closer to the water going over toward #2, #3 and #4 at Spyglass (in exchange for the property where #4, #5, #6, #10 and #11 at Cypress Point are routed).

While I do think part of the charm of Cypress Point is the different settings, I can’t help but wonder what Mackenzie might have done with a different real estate configuration.

Could Cypress Point have been more dramatic and perhaps even better?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

No absolutely not! How bold of you to bring up such a risky topic. What cahjones!

Dr. Katzzzzzzzzzz! ! ! ! ! !

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

While I don't like tampering with classic designs, I see nothing wrong with an academic discussion about what might have been done differently.......even in the case of wonders like Cypress Point.

Unlike the case of Augusta, I see little danger of any changes being made to Cypress Point, especially along the lines I'm suggesting.  So why not take up the question on its merits?

[Paul Richards]

Here's my academic discussion about Cypress.

It's the best golf course on the earth.

End of discussion.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I don't believe the course would have benefitted from a different configuration. I think the reason the course works so well is the ballance between ocean, dunes and forest - each playing off one another, resulting more drama for each setting. The routing that moves in and out of these different environments creates a very interesting flow. The better question might be would Spyglass Hill have benefitted from a different routing.

[Ran Morrissett]

Tim,

Yes, I think it would have been better, though I just deleted my initial response which argued that I doubted it  

Bottom line: in the hands of the same architect, better land = better holes and as good as a hole like the 5th is, it can't compete with the inspiring nature of a hole like the 13th. While it would be a shame to lose the mix of forest holes to those of the dune and ocean holes, call it a wild guess but the Good Doctor would not have let us down.

The only downside of five more 13ths in lieu of 4, 5, 6, 10, and 11 (the loss of the 6th is particularly disappointing) would be that all discussions of trying to 'identify' the world's greatest course could cease.

Cheers,

[JakaB]

Of course it could have been and could be better...how can Cypress be considered the greatest course on earth when it can no longer test the best players of our time.   Shinnecock and Pinehurst all are still great championship tests while remaining fun for the recreational player.  As great as MacKenzie was his championship courses are only shells of their original designs while the genius of Ross and Flynn stand the test of time.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I agree that with better land would have been better holes. 3,4,5,6,7 and 10 are great holes but wraping around the bend would be even better. 11 is too good to fool with period. lol

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

BarneyF
How do we know Cypress Point can't test the greatest players of our time? If condemmed to play only one of those three courses for the remainder of your life, which would you choose?

Don't 4, 5 & 6 and 10 & 11 make the dunes holes that preceed and follow more dramatic? I'm not an expert on human emotions and human sensations, but don't great works of music suceed because they touch on many emotions, perhaps starting slowly building up, slowing down again, building and then finally ending with crecendo (I think that is also true with film and works of fiction) - if anything the end is where CP seems to faulter, although the original concept for 18 would have been a fitting conclusion. If CP was made up of entirely dunes holes and ocean holes, would be asking ourselves why didn't he utilize the forest of Monterey pines for utlimate variety?

Is it possible to be over stimulated? Is that the problem with many of our modern courses that attempt to create 18 finishing holes - the result is a course that doesn't have a natural flow.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom MacWood- There is no doubt Spyglass Hill would've been another CPC, if they had only kept the dunesland theme going. Or more plausable, if they had used the drama of the dunesland holes the way MacKenzie did at CPC, coming at the climax of the symphony.

JakaB- If it doesn't challenge the best players in the world, Why do they scramble to get their rounds in there when they are on the peninsula? And act like little kids in a candy store when they are there?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

On previous occasions I've expressed my fondness for what I call "mood changes" on a golf course and this is one reason I prefer a course like Crystal Downs to Pine Valley, the latter being quite weak by this measure.  Cypress Point, as you suggest, also benefits from this feature.  Thus, because of my own personal preferences, I was somewhat hesitant to raise this issue about a different routing for Cypress Point.

That said, I decided to resist the point of view Paul Richards apparently took.  We are here, after all, to engage in academic discussion.  Unfortunately, we rarely seem capable of looking at great venues and contemplating a very different routing.  The exercise is just very difficult.

But, I do think Cypress Point offers a unique opportunity because if you think outside the box and grab the land going over to the present day Spyglass, someone of Mackenzie's talent might well have done some even more amazing things.  That is the opinion Ran is expressing and I can't argue he is wrong.

I hope Bob Huntley - who encouraged me to start this thread - will offer his view on what might have been done.  Unfortunately, it has been more than ten years since I've been at Cypress Point and I can't offer much in the way of details.

[JakaB]

Clay,

Tour players are no different than the rest of us in that they enjoy beautiful scenery, making birdies and being invited to places that make us feel a little better than the common man.  If Pebble were the exclusive club and Cypress a resort...no top level pro would ever step foot at the place except for tournaments or for a fee.

[THuckaby2]

For this exercise, are we to assume that the battle with Mr. Morse over the placement of what is now 17 Mile Drive doesn't occur also?  Hell, if we're gonna screw with the greatest course on earth, why not take it to the logical conclusion and get 14 down near the water like MacKenzie wanted?

Give us that, give me the land encompassing 2-3-4-5 at Spyglass carrying that out to the water, and oh yes, you're gonna have a better golf course.

Keep the road where it is and I don't know... how are you gonna get back to where 14 starts efficiently?  How much better would that land at Spyglass be than the GREAT holes there at Cypress now?

Great thread, in any case!  I have no answers, only questions.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

It's good to see your in touch with everyones druthers but I find your theoretical a mite spurious.

I know of quite a few individuals who think CPC ain't all that and would play Pebble everyday of the week over CPC.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tim
I think it is an interesting and valid question. And there are many ways to look at it, each view equally valid and reasonable. I don't think there is golf course in the world that you can't look at its individual holes and say that they could be improved in some way. But does an improvement of individual holes translate into a better course or improvement in the sum of the parts - in my mind not necessarily. Which gets back to the idea of a routing as not a collection of individual holes, but one naturally flowing whole. Where variety and 'mood changes' are equally important to the quality of each individual hole.

[TEPaul]

It is interesting to wonder about, isn't it? But to me it's a discussion that's way too speculative and sort of a discussion in a vacuum.

It really isn't good enough to just say there's great and beautiful dunesland over there and so logically something better could have been done.

For anyone to really make the point that it could have been better with that land really needs to intimately know that land (all of it) and to also really understand the finer points of the routing process of balance, variety and many other things and also have a great imagination for hole concepts on raw land--the way MacKenzie et al (Hunter, Hollins etc) did! And to then lay out something even if on an aerial overlay, but also necessarily on something ground level too.

There very well may be some mix over there that would have been even better, but we will likely never know!

[TEPaul]

One thing about Cypress that seems more easily visualized is that it might have been a better course than it is now if MacKenzie had won his two hole battle with Morse! But he didn't win that battle, Morse did!

[TEPaul]

Frankly, from the look of it, I think #2 could have been even better if MacKenzie had stuck with his original ideas on that hole (or not lost another battle on it). The lower left option off the tee was a very distinct option and seems from the look of that hole to have been a really good one!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
Refresh my memory, I've completely forgot what MacKenzie wanted to do that Morse nixed. Something about #14 and the 17-mile drive?

[THuckaby2]

Millions and millions of tourists are quite glad Morse won that battle re 14, TEP.  

Re #2, jeez... I hadn't given any thought to the lower left tee option there.  That would have been better indeed.  Was that in Geoff's book?  I don't recall hearing about that and I read Geoff's book very diligently.  Shame on me.

TH

[Bob_Huntley]

When Tim wrote me about his thoughts, I was stunned with the realization that I had played CP a goodly number of times and never thought of an alternative routing. However, in retrospect, could you imagine if all of Fan Shell Beach had been available at the time? A splendid strech of holes and not some of the ugliest houses in the Forest. All emotion aside, holes thee, four and five do not make the senses sing.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

In fairness, I was posing a question, not trying to make the case that a better routing plan was possible for Cypress Point.

Making such a case WOULD require what you suggest, including an intimate knowledge of all the property and the skills of a golf architect which I certainly don't have.

But, I don't think the question should simply be dismissed as too speculative.  For all its importance, we so infrequently discuss routing plans.

At Cypress Point, I think we have a case of something that might have been quite different.  Better?  Who knows.

Perhaps Bob Huntley can spend some time on 17th Mile Drive and share more of his thoughts.  Honestly, I couldn't offer much more without a site visit.

Tom MacWood:

Regarding #14, Geoff Shackelford reported that Mackenzie originally wanted to place the tee closer to the water and route the hole along the water.  Apparently, Morse objected based on concerns about the placement of 17th Mile Drive.

Tom Huckaby is probably right that millions of visitors are  delighted that Morse won this debate.

[Bob_Huntley]

What was truly an about-face by Sam Morse from 1929 to 1960, was that he told the MPCC Board that they could route the then proposed Shore Course right alongside the ocean, if they would pay to have the 17 Mile Drive repaved and moved inland for the COSTLY sum of $50,000.00. The Board, in their wisdom and having committed to the costly plan of spending as much as $150,000.00 for the new course, declined the offer.

Although Tim Weiman's musings might have provoked apoplexy in some of you, the very thought of what might have been is most thought provoking and is to be commended.

[TEPaul]

As explained in GeoffShac's book on Cypress Point, MacKenzie very much wanted to putt 17 mile drive between holes #1 & #14 so #14 would be along the coast instead of having 17 mile drive between the coast and #14. This was on what Geoff referred to as MacKenzie's 2nd routing and apparently holes 12-15 were somewhat different than they turned out to be on a compromise negotiated by Robert Hunter. Morse opposed #14  as a safety issue.

MacKenzie apparently wanted to route #18 from a tee about 50yds to the rear of the present tees of about 365yds. Obviously the expense and durability of the bridge that was designed for the back rock or island tee was an issue but Morse apparently also felt that such an extension would compromise the view of the ocean by the public.

Four holes hugging the coast may have been better than three but maybe Morse was right too. Tom Huckaby's point about the public appreciating that compromise is surely true. I can't remember how many people use that road but if it's a lot Morse obviously was correct--it would not have been good to have them driving  between two of Cypress's hole.

Tim:

I realize yours was just a question about a better Cypress routing and I'm sure you weren't making a case or trying to. I certainly don't mean to be critical of you for asking it. But still a question deserves and answer and I do think this kind of question is just too speculative to produce a good or accurate answer. At least not without a good deal of investigation and effort.

[TEPaul]

What exactly Morse was seeing and/or worried about on some coastal aspects of the Monterrey Peninsula is interesting to consider. On the one hand he took some of what MacKenzie may have wanted to do off the coast at Cypress, but on the other hand he went to the effort and expense of buying back a considerable amount of coastal property from the planned lots and routed Pebble's hole's 6-9 along it instead.