CPC 16. Dont try this at Home.

[Mike Hendren]

Rich,

It was explained to me by my nameless company that you stated that a similarly designed par-three over a garbage dump would have just as much merit as CPC's 16th since the shot values would be identical.

I hope you were not misquoted.  That would be unprecedented among treehouse participants.  

BTW, I think you are estopped from suing Barney since he likewise dissed himself by acknowledging his likeness to Patrick Starr.

Regards,

Mike

[Dan Kelly]

I get back from 3 days of actually playing golf and this website seems to have gone bananas--is the weather so crap in the USofA that none of you have anything better to do?  Even the usually meticulous Dan Kelly is trying to spuriously claim credit for my idea of a "redan" green on the 18th at Pebble Beach.....

My dear Rihc --

Here's what you wrote: "Can't they do something more creative on that right side, like a little hard pan swale which, perhaps combined with a little extra canting of the green towards the ocean would make any pitch from the right side a delicate affair?"

***********

I replied: "I love the idea of tilting that green toward the water.

Rich -- Why do you need a hardpan swale?

Thumbs down on a new tree."

***********

You replied: "Dan

I'm trying to think of something more creative and challenging than just a bunker, or rough.  Some sort of Pinehurst#2 type pitching/chipping area that makes the players think and execute a difficult shot under pressure, with some significant penalties if they fail."

***********

I replied: "Rich --

I understood that.

But I'm still wondering: If you tilt the green (cant is not in my vocabulary!  ), couldn't you just extend the fairway to create the effect you want? Why would you need to manufacture a swale?

Here's an idea, building on yours:

Build up the right side of the green (possibly extending it to the right), and tilt the right side down toward the water, fairly severely (toward a flat left side). Remove the front-right bunker. Build up the front-right approach.

What do you have then? A hole that one could play (depending on the wind, and one's strength, and one's game) with a high fade or with a running draw.

What do you have? You have a par-5 Redan! Man, oh, man, what a hole that would be."

****************

See how problematical it can get to assign the proper credit for great ideas?!

Meticulously yrs.,

Dan

P.S. Can't speak for the whole U.S. of A. -- but, yes, the weather here has been pure crapola.

[ForkaB]

Dan

A "green canted from front right to back left" by any other name would still be a "redan", no?

[Dan Kelly]

Dan

A "green canted from front right to back left" by any other name would still be a "redan", no?

Rihc --

Apparently you didn't think so then!

Here's your next reply: "Dan

I think to build a Redan-style green that actually worked for a 250 yard incoming shot would require too much earth moving and would take the ocean too much out of play.  I agree with Chip that you want to keep the bold left hand line as Position A, and require a hard fade over the water to make the green in two.  If you tilt up/cant the right hand of the green slightly you will make it more accepting of that preferred 2nd shot, as well as create the "swale" out of which one who bails out right will have to pitch.  Mine is a minimalist solution, I think. (Smiley)."

***********
I replied: "Rich --

I agree with both you and chipoat that the over-the-water line should be (a) the more perilous and (b) the more rewarding. I think that's exactly what my "solution" would do. That, at least, is what I INTENDED to do -- while, at the same, making a drawn, on-the-ground approach POSSIBLE, and making a third-shot pitch from the right side dicey.

I have no idea if more earth would have to be moved than would be practicable. (On the other hand, I'm not sure that's a reasonable criterion. This is a place that is reportedly thinking about dropping a quarter of a million bucks into a cypress tree.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

I've played only one classic Redan -- the original, at North Berwick. Am I wrong in thinking that the BEST shot to that green (under many, if not all, conditions) is a high fade that lands upper right and drifts down left?

That's the sort of shot I'd like to see the big boys hit there. And the rest of us mortals can have our fun with running pitches over the Redan embankment or flop shots aimed at the top right corner."

**************

You replied: "Dan

I think we're on the same wave length.  I'm only quibbling in thinking of a green more of the current size and shape rather than a full-blown "Redan."  If you had a green the height of the 15th at NB I don't think any of the pros would even consider going for it, which is the whole curpose of hte exercise.  Maybe I'm underestimating how "good" those guys are, however........ "

*************

I replied: "Rich --

We're definitely on the same wavelength.

I don't know how high the embankment should be, or how high the original Redan's is. Have played it only once. You're probably right: It's probably way too high (and possibly too steep) for 18 at Pebble.

I was speaking of the general shape and tilt of the green and approach, and of their effects on various types of shots, rather than of specific slopes or heights.

But that front-right bunker needs to come out, doesn't it, if the ground game is to be possible? (Played Pebble only once, too. Oh, well.)"

****************

Tom I replied: "You boys are like a cabal of green chairmen on catnip!"

****************

All for naught, of course. All hail the new Stupid Tree (tm)!

[ForkaB]

Dan

How do you say "I surrender" in French?  There must be more than one version.........

[ChipOat]

Dan Kelly, Shivas, Tom Paul, Rich Goodale:

The discussion about Pebble #18 is wonderful - the Redan green would require the removal of that Stupid Tree.

It was actually myownself that first came up with the angled green (FL to BR) to enhance the pure strategy of the hole - the Redan part is something you guys can sort out.

Also, good riddance to curious jj - let us not somehow encourage his return.

[Dan Kelly]

Dan

How do you say "I surrender" in French?  There must be more than one version.........

What an extraordinary straight line! And nothing's coming to me!

How about: "Je suis Francais"? Would anything more than that be redundant?

Of course, I don't want you to surrender! After all, we're on the same team here! (Tell that to the French.)

[GeoffreyC]

I knew this would come up at some time so I took this photo of the stupid tree a month ago just for Chip.

For the record, I would leave Pebble Beach alone or put it back closer to those gorgeous photos in Geoff's book.  There is enough history at PB and especially with the 18th to warrent leaving it alone.  If you want a redan then I would suggest that the (currently) architecturally weak 12th hole would fit the bill for that change.

[Mike Hendren]

How come nobody calls the two recently transplanted trees flanking the landing area on CPC's 6th hole "stupid."

Curious,

Mike

[THuckaby2]

How come nobody calls the two recently transplanted trees flanking the landing area on CPC's 6th hole "stupid."

Curious,

Mike

Just because those who believe in stupid trees either (a) haven't seen or heard of these yet or (b) just haven't cared to add this to the litany.

TH

[golfer4life]

I have just started reading some of the posts, and was pretty impressed with some of your ideas.  I recently played CPC and was blown away by the improvements and upkeep (including the trees on 6).  

For what it is worth, laying up on 16 is no guaranteed 4.  Might as well swing away.

[ChipOat]

Geoffrey:

Thank you for the picture.  Please note that Dan Kelly mentioned "Stupid Tree" before I did AND he even capitalized it like the proper noun that it is!

The new Stupid Tree appears to be less offensive than its predecessor as follows:

1) the branches don't stick out as far to the left;
2) the fairway appears to be more narrow on the right side than before - the "bail out" shot now appears to end up in the rough.

Can this now be a Valid Tree??

Philosophically, I'd still be in favor of a more radical green complex.  Without a Stupid Tree to contend with, the 3rd shot from the right (fairway) now appears much less problematic than before as the green and surrounds are pretty benign beyond the right greenside bunker.

Easy 3rd shots are sort of "yawner" par 5's IMO.

[ChipOat]

Geoffrey (again):

I know it's off the subject of this thread but you said it, so.....

Why does a course's historical importance have anything to do with the alteration decision of any particular hole(s)?

I would point to ANGC and Merion as 2 courses that have undergone much positive change long after they were first the scenes of history-making tournaments.  I'm sure there are many others besides those two.

Improvements are improvements - why does it matter what happened in the past on the pre-amended, allegedly sacred ground?

[GeoffreyC]

Chip

You make good points, however, my personal idea on the 18th really goes in parallel with the equipment issue.  I'd like to see today's players faced with the same shots and decisions as Hogan and Nicklaus etc.  On the 18th at Pebble, I'd still like the layup decisions and third shot to stay the same. I don't think its totally goofy and as you aptly observed, the new tree is better then the previous on that died.

I think #12 is the weakest hole at Pebble and a good place for a redan green.  As it plays now, only a very high soft shot has any chance with pins on the left.

[Mike Benham]

Just for the heck of it ...

Bump ...

[Bill_McBride]

Just for the heck of it ...

Bump ...

You, sir, are a sh*t disturber of the first order!

[Kevin_Reilly]

Just for the heck of it ...

Bump ...

Mike, how was the WIND?

[Kenny Baer]

I only read the first page but I would lay up every time.  The key statement is "an important" match....if it is actually important then you would do what gives you the best chance to win.  In my case that would be to lay up; for some the smart play would be to hit it the ball at the center of the green because the carry is of no issue.  I played with a guy last weekend that would be between a 5 and 6 iron at CPC #16.  It is around 220 yds if I remember correctly.   

I think risk, excitement, the chance to pull something off is a quality that many great holes/courses have.  T

This may be a little strange but one of my most memorable shots was at some course in Vegas when I was 17, the green had water on the left and it kind of reminded me of what was #17 at Congressional for that years US Open, I was playing my Dad and we were either tied or I was 1dn.  I hit a great shot (or so I thought) that just caromed off the bank and went into the water.  I remember thinking how it looked just like Lehman's shot at the 71st hole of that year's US Open.  The thrill of the attempt has stuck w/ me to this day.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

I haven't gone back and read the entire thread, but, missing from the premise/question is a critical question.

WHAT did the opponent do with his next shot, his third shot on the hole ?

If he hit it in the Ocean again, then he must retee again.

If he hit it safe, you'd have to be foolish to try a shot beyond your ability.

But, let's say that Shivas went for the green with his tee shot and hit it short, into the ocean.
His opponent lies three, safely to the left.
What does he do with his third shot ?
Does he "Tin Cup" it and LOSE this IMPORTANT match, or does reality kick in and he too plays the shot he should have played originally, safely to the left ?

[Kalen Braley]

The problem lies in the premise...

Namely who exactly would have an "important match"?  At CPC nonetheless?

Going for it isn't about being reckless and it doesn't personify everything thats wrong with the game.

It only means...wow this is arguably the greatest hole ever conceived....why would I lay up?

[Pete_Pittock]

In Mark Frost's 'The Match' it was written that Ben Hogan was of the opinion that the reward gained by going for the green was outweighed by the attendant risks. Notwithstanding, when reaching the 16th with the honors and a 1 up lead, there was no hesitation in hitting his driver. Of course,
Byron Nelson was his partner and still to hit.

[Adam Clayman]

The problem lies in the premise...

Namely who exactly would have an "important match"?  At CPC nonetheless?

Going for it isn't about being reckless and it doesn't personify everything thats wrong with the game.

It only means...wow this is arguably the greatest hole ever conceived....why would I lay up?

It's remarkable how many times someone (Kalen) can be wrong in such a short post.

[Padraig Dooley]

A friend of mine was playing in the California State Am, I think at the time the A flight was held in Pebble and the B flight in Cypress (dilemma, which one to qualify for?). The match was tight enough, no more then one hole in it, my friend, call him Bob, had the honour and hit a wood to a couple of feet, his opponent then hit it into the ice plant short, as they were walking to the tee the opponent said 'that's good'.

Bob walked up to the green, picked up to his ball and walked to the 17th tee. His opponent went over to his ball in the ice plant and continued to play out the hole, finishing out in six or more and walked up to the 17th tee. Bob beckoned to tee up first, his opponent claimed it was his honour, Bob asked why? He said Bob hadn't finished out the hole, Bob then pointed out the 'that's good' statement to which the answer given was he was commenting on the good shot and not the concession. Bob then proceeded to deck his opponent, pick up his bag, walk to the clubhouse and drove away.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The problem lies in the premise...

Namely who exactly would have an "important match"?  At CPC nonetheless?

Going for it isn't about being reckless and it doesn't personify everything thats wrong with the game.

It only means...wow this is arguably the greatest hole ever conceived....why would I lay up?

Kalen,

The first time I played CPC, I had a bet with a very good friend.
Our bet had to do with my scores at CPC, PB and SH and the aggregate score at all three.

I had had a good round at SH and came to the 16th at CPC one over par.
The caddy was aware of my wager and suggested that I consider taking the safer route to the left as a good headwind was a significant factor.  I told him that I didn't come 3,000 miles to play safe and hit a terrific, low driver on the green.

My wager with my friend was a nominal one, one more of pride and bragging rights more than the incidental amount of money.

But, If I was playing in a tournament, was one up on my opponent, who just hit it short, into the ocean, there's no doubt, that unless something really crazy happened, that I'd step up on to the 17th tee two up.

[Kalen Braley]

The problem lies in the premise...

Namely who exactly would have an "important match"?  At CPC nonetheless?

Going for it isn't about being reckless and it doesn't personify everything thats wrong with the game.

It only means...wow this is arguably the greatest hole ever conceived....why would I lay up?

Kalen,

The first time I played CPC, I had a bet with a very good friend.
Our bet had to do with my scores at CPC, PB and SH and the aggregate score at all three.

I had had a good round at SH and came to the 16th at CPC one over par.
The caddy was aware of my wager and suggested that I consider taking the safer route to the left as a good headwind was a significant factor.  I told him that I didn't come 3,000 miles to play safe and hit a terrific, low driver on the green.

My wager with my friend was a nominal one, one more of pride and bragging rights more than the incidental amount of money.

But, If I was playing in a tournament, was one up on my opponent, who just hit it short, into the ocean, there's no doubt, that unless something really crazy happened, that I'd step up on to the 17th tee two up.

Patrick,

Thanks for relaying that story.  I guess it would seem I'm not always "wrong" after all!!   

P.S.  Did you make the birdie putt?