[Rich Goodale]

As for me, I can't think of one hole at CPC where the ground game is an intelligent option, regardless of maintenance. 

The long approach to #2 ...

But you are right, there are not many options for the ground game but it is also hilly undulating course, with many elevated (naturally) greens while Carnoustie is flat as a pancake.

Is Carnoustie all fescue?

I don't know, Mike, but it's probably a mixture of fescue, bent and even some invasive meadow grasses--just like all links courses

[Rich Goodale]

Rihc and others, I think Carnouste is a harder course by far. Yet, is it better, hmmm I think not. It is a links course with all the wonderful attributes you would find on a great links course. However few if any think it is the best or greatest links course. I defer to your beloved Royal Dornoch or TOC or Muirfield, or RSG, or..........By the by does Royal mean a royal had sex on the course or just urinated on it to give it a special status? I think Cypres has many ground game design features that conditioning by using too much water take away. The course is designed for a windy conditions with open fronts to most of the greens. 1,2,3,4,5,6,,8, 10,11,12,13,14,17,18.

Tiger

In my too few (two) passes at CPC I never even considered a greound game shot, on any hole.  Surely some of that was over-watered maintenance, but even if they fast and firmed it to death, I still can't think of any hole I'd try a bump and run from 150 with my mashie niblick, except maybe #9 with a mashie niblick off the tee, too....  As for relatively quality, we can agree to disagree.  Before I posted my 1st comment on this issue I did two "match play" simulations CPC vs. Carnoustie (one on a straight 1-18 comparison, and one comparing like holes to like) and the latter won in both cases, although not by much.  If it were a stroke play comparison, CPC would likely be looking at something close to a dog license (7/6 for the US contingent)....

All the best

Rich

[Mark Pearce]

Rich,

I'm intrigued.  How would a stroke play comparison work?  Would CPC be winning that stroke play comparison or losing?

[Rich Goodale]

Rich,

I'm intrigued.  How would a stroke play comparison work?  Would CPC be winning that stroke play comparison or losing?

Hi Mark

CPC would lose.  For example, lets say that my expected score relative to par on the 1st at Carnousite is +.5, and on the 1st at Cypress it is +.3=Carnoustie one up.  On the 2nd my expected score at Carnousite is +.7. and on Cypress +.2=Carnoustie 2 up.  Etc. etc.

I'll stop now because I'm getting more Joshua Crane than I'd like to be.......

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Bartman writes:
Fairness - This attribute isn't one that I see very often in modern design.  Often times a player is penalized for hitting a shot that is longer and straighter than someone who doesn't.

And this is one of the many reasons very good golfers should be kept away from influencing the design of golf courses.  They are far too prone to designing a golf course to fit their game

AGREED, there tends to be tunnel vision when it comes to understanding architecture's intended function for the broad spectrum of golfers.


. As far as I have ever seen, distance is much more often an advantage in golf rather than a disadvantage. But you want advantages beyond your ability to hit a long ball, believing you should never be penalized for hitting it far.

You want a golf course that will reward good shots and punish bad shots. I think golfers need to be tested mentally as well as physically, and I think the idea of occasionally punishing a good shot and rewarding a bad shot is what makes golf a much more interesting game than American golf. More often than not a good shot will work better than a bad shot, but it should never be a given. There should always be luck playing a major part on golf. It's part of the reason the game is played on a live, constantly changing field.   

Cheers,
Dan King

Beyond the fact that it is a limitless arena for the full play of human nature, there is no sure accounting for golf's fascination. Obviously yet mysteriously, it furnishes its devotees with an intense, many-sided, and abiding pleasure unlike that which any other form of recreation affords. Perhaps it is, as Andrew Carnegie once claimed, `indispensable adjunct of high civilization'. Perhaps it is nothing more than the best game man has ever devised.
  --Herbert Warren Wind  (The Complete Golfer)

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Rihc i would never think CPC would beat Carnouste in a stroke play approach. I do see the opportunity to play the ground game if the course condition allowed for it. I have played my second on 18 4 or 5 times as a low draw that runs up even with wet maintenance. I have played a low cut and run into 17 as well. A low cut around the tree and let it run up. And down wind played my 3rd on 2 as a land 10 short and bounce in. The same on 10 and 11 when the wind calls for it. If it was maintained like MPCC Shore or the Cal Club it would add a great number of interesting options to the round. But it is not, yet the course holds the world fasination.

[David Bartman]

Ed to answer your question in no particular order:

Augusta, Muirfield Village, Milwaukee CC, Torrey Pines, Sage Valley,  Riviera, Troon ( Scotland) Pinehurst #2,#4, Point O' Woods, Pebble Beach, Hazeltine, Merion, Oak Hill, Prairie Dunes, Eugene CC, Harbor Town, Cherry Hills, Scioto, Olympic Club ( non USGA set up) Honors Course, LACC, San Francisco Golf Club,  Madison Club, Champions ( houston) Carlton Woods Nicklaus, CC of NC ( cant remember which course is which, did like one more than the other) Kingsbarnes, Cypress Point, Spyglass,

Jack - I totally agree about the weather being a huge factor on the peninsula,, however that is constant over the whole peninsula, taking advantage of particular weather situations on every course is important.  However, once again the weather, beauty etc are all part of the experience and not necessarily the design of the golf course.  Spanish Bay is pretty, has almost the same weather , yet is one awful golf course IMO. 
CPC is ranked as highly as it is , IMO for many factors, the first being that it is probably the most beautiful course in the world, has an incredible history ( the match ) , is very difficult to get onto, ( mystery )

Let me be clear, I don't think that Cypress Point Club is a bad golf course, its very good, but I personally don't think its in the top 10 or maybe 20 in the country.  I don't think its the best in its zip code ( pebble ) Mostly because I put zero value on beauty and history when evaluating a golf course.  I leave it strictly to the golf. 

[David Bartman]

I completely disagree with your premise --- I think course should be built for the 2% in mind, and then provide enough tee boxes and at time different entry angles into greens so that everyone at every level can enjoy the shot values that are created.  Old courses trying to be more relevant  should mostly only be lengthening the back tees and not all the tees, most courses are not doing this and simply making the experience for the average golfer worse by making the mistake of assuming that every player is gaining a 20-30 yard advantage due to the new equipment , which is simply not the case.   New technology has really made it difficult to build a challenging golf course for the best players while providing an enjoyable experience for the average golfer such as yourself.  It has really increased the distance discrepancy in the two classes of golfers. 

I think many of the newest golf courses are garbage because they are really build to sell real estate or have to deal with environmental areas that really inhibit the architect from doing what he actually wants to do with the terrain and acreage he is given. 

Both of these factors have very little to do with what level golfer is playing the course. 

David:

You should leave out the next to last paragraph, as you really don't have much idea what you are speaking of there, as far as I know.

You seem to have a bunch of rules for yourself to apply, as to what makes a good golf course.  That's fine, if that's the way you want to do it.  I am fine with very good players trying to ignore the beauty of a course and just concentrate on the individual holes and golf shots, if they want to.  But, you shouldn't discount that those things matter to other golfers.

Also, you shouldn't hold the beauty of a golf course AGAINST it.  You said yourself that 15 and 16 at Cypress Point are great holes, so it's hard to see how others are overrating it because of its beauty.  Which holes, exactly, are they overrating on that basis?  It sounds like you must not like #17, since you omitted it.

I wouldn't say that Cypress Point has the best 18 holes on earth, and I certainly wouldn't say that it's the most demanding course for a scratch golfer such as yourself.  But are you saying that you wouldn't find a match against a good opponent at Cypress Point, as stimulating as a match at Carnoustie?  In other words, is it all about stroke play for you?

If that's not the case, then please tell us which holes at Cypress Point are inferior, in your view, to the duller parts of Carnoustie [I will throw out holes 7-8-9-11-12, to get started].

Mr. Doak,

First of all , I respect your opinion and to even the chance to have an exchange with someone with your knowledge and expertise is fantastic.  I drew golf holes on class notes and napkins for the better part of 15 years.  I often thought that if playing golf didn't work out I would go landscape architecture school and become an architect.  Unfortunately, life had other plans for me after golf and I went to graduate school in business.  Back to the discussion. 

When you say that you don't think that Cypress Point has the best 18 holes on earth and yet its ranked in the top 5 in the world consistently, that is where I have a problem with rankings.  Shouldn't a top 5 course be in the conversation of the best 18 holes?

What course do you think have the best 18 holes? 

To be clear, I never indicated, and if I did, I was mistaken and it isn't my view, that Cypress wasn't a very good golf course, IMO it is.  I just don't find it to be in the top 5 or 10 course I have played, and I haven't come close to playing what most deem to generally be the best in the states or the world.   

I certainly haven't discounted that beauty and overall experience is very important to other golfers, regardless of skill level.  I understand that the total experience is what is being judged by most golfers. 

For the record,  I don't hold the beauty of the golf holes against them, I don't factor in beauty on any golf hole in my analysis.  15 and 16 are terrific golf holes and would be if you picked them up and put them in Iowa.

You are correct I am not a fan of 17, a group of trees in the middle of the fairway, isn't for me. 

I'll repeat , Cypress is a very good course, I would love to play another match there, ( someone else asked, yes I have played CPC around 10 times)  I would agree its a much better match play course than stroke play as to comparing a match at Cypress against a match at Carnoustie, I think I would prefer to play the match at Carnoustie, I think more often than not, the better player would win more often if the match were played at Cypress.  As to which course I would be more stimulated at, well that would entirely depend on how I was doing in the match

As to leaving out the next to last paragraph, does that refer to the courses built around real estate and having to do with environmental areas?  I will stick to that comment, I can list a lot  of golf courses just in that were constrained by development of real estate and/or environmental constraints.

[David Bartman]

David, I must say I agree with Tom and others on this. i have been fortunate to play those holes many times and rarely are things the same. The conditions change many times over the course of a day much less a week or a month. Yes the same occurs on a links course and frankly that is the defense of the course. A links course in a benign day is a toothless test for far less a golfer than you. I have been a single digit guy most of my life and appreciate shotmaking with the best of them. Frankly I feel like the mindset you put forth leaves you missing much of the beauty and greatness the game offers. Maybe when your skills erode a bit with age or life you may look at things differently. oh and there is no recreating 15 to 17 at Cypress nor can one recreate 11,12 and 13 or 7,8 and 9. 2 and 4 are incredible holes. 1 is a tough opener. Thankfully the greatness of a course is not measured by most of the golfing world by hard.  I am thankful to have played Carnouste enough times to see it in multiple wind directions from benign to well gales, rain to balmy. It is a great course as well which i hold a special place for, but would never call it as memorable as Cypress Pointe.

So your metric for measuring golf course is how memorable they are? 
I am all for shot making, I wouldn't design a golf course for bombers, I like doglegs , great short holes, I like pot bunkers, risk reward.
I certainly don't rank courses by how hard they are ... when PGA WEST Stadium was first built it was really hard, too hard and terrible.  Technology has only recently caught up to make the course OK, and somewhat enjoyable, (and they took out the bushes between all the holes ), so hard is not a metric I use to measure a course.  I would much rather play an easy course that is well designed than a hard course that isn't.

 I much prefer Valley Club, which I forgot to list on a previous post, which isn't a demanding test of golf , to El Caballero which is much more difficult, 2-3 shots for a scratch player, which I feel is lacking in many areas of design both in routing and green complex design. 

[David Bartman]

David Bartman writes:
Fairness - This attribute isn't one that I see very often in modern design.  Often times a player is penalized for hitting a shot that is longer and straighter than someone who doesn't.

And this is one of the many reasons very good golfers should be kept away from influencing the design of golf courses.  They are far too prone to designing a golf course to fit their game

AGREED, there tends to be tunnel vision when it comes to understanding architecture's intended function for the broad spectrum of golfers.

. As far as I have ever seen, distance is much more often an advantage in golf rather than a disadvantage. But you want advantages beyond your ability to hit a long ball, believing you should never be penalized for hitting it far.

You want a golf course that will reward good shots and punish bad shots. I think golfers need to be tested mentally as well as physically, and I think the idea of occasionally punishing a good shot and rewarding a bad shot is what makes golf a much more interesting game than American golf. More often than not a good shot will work better than a bad shot, but it should never be a given. There should always be luck playing a major part on golf. It's part of the reason the game is played on a live, constantly changing field.   

Cheers,
Dan King

Beyond the fact that it is a limitless arena for the full play of human nature, there is no sure accounting for golf's fascination. Obviously yet mysteriously, it furnishes its devotees with an intense, many-sided, and abiding pleasure unlike that which any other form of recreation affords. Perhaps it is, as Andrew Carnegie once claimed, `indispensable adjunct of high civilization'. Perhaps it is nothing more than the best game man has ever devised.
  --Herbert Warren Wind  (The Complete Golfer)

Dan and Patrick

I think I have already made a point of indicating that with the use of tee boxes and routing ( angles into greens) all levels of play can enjoy various shot values that are created by an architect.  So i am very aware of both the average male and female golfers when determining how a hole ought to be played at various skill levels.  In America, most players don't play the correct tees which in my opinion detracts from their enjoyment of the game.  When I was in Scotland , I had to prove that I was an accomplished golfer in order to get access to the back tees, and that is the way it should be done.  Nothing worse than seeing the group in front of you all in low double digit range , playing the back tees at Whistling Straights.  It makes for a much longer day , and I can't imagine its more enjoyable to shoot around 100 instead of 85-90 from the proper tee boxes.

When you say tested mentally, you mean to overcome the grief one feels by hitting what they think is good shot , getting a bad bounce into a bunker?  Or do you mean determining from the tee that the same bunker is not a place they want to be , and choose a club that will not reach that bunker to avoid it?  I much prefer the later of the two when it comes to being tested mentally.  Strategy is very important to me when evaluating golf course design.   Luck is going to be in the game of golf regardless of design, its just a matter of how much luck a GCA wants to build into his design. 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

David thanks for the nice feedback, but no memorable is not my measuring stick. it is one variable though. I tend to look at the routing, the mix of holes, and specifically the 3's, 4's and 5's individually for diversity and strength as well as how they blend together for this particular course. The memorability factor is tied into and a small part of  all those astectic factors which impact your overall golf experience. There a great deal that goes into an evaluation of a golf course more than i wrote.  That is just a quick note. CPC is in the world top 5 to 10 for all those reasons no matter how you skin them. It really only has one or two weak holes being 17 and 18. I am not sure 17 is really as weak as the rap it gets.  18 is a weak hole but the course had to get home. A tee on the rock with some tree cutting to define the fairway better for a tee shot might improve it and take away the primary knock on the hole. I really like the green complex on 18.

[Mac Plumart]

I love this thread!!!


Reminds me a bit of this...

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/joshua-crane-part-i/

And this...

http://mnuzzo.com/pdf/GAV5.pdf

[Kevin Pallier]

Other than Pebble Beach, does Cypress Point have the least strategic green complexes of any top 10/20/50 course? 

David

An interesting Q - the thing I enjoyed most about CPC greens were it's subtilties. The caddies were reading me lines that I had a hard time seeing and commiting too. Whilst not as large as many other Top50 courses there's enough movement in them to make one think their angle of approach. Also, getting above the hole is also fraught with danger on many holes #8, #9 and #18 spring to mind with their tiers.

Which Top courses that you've seen in your travels would you put into such category ?

[Bill_McBride]

Be very careful with the front to back spine in the 13th green.  One misstep and you're ten feet off line.  Don't ask how I know!

[David Davis]

I'm a lover of pure links courses, CPC is the only exception I've experienced to date. For me it will likely always be the best course, most memorable and most amazing experience all in one. Spiritually and emotionally untouchable. Standing on the 17th tee in the sun with sea lions barking all around and whales breaching and spouting off to the right, tears began to flow as I realized this was perhaps the most beautiful place on Earth. We had 6 in our group, a couple members just joining us for the walk. Everyone understood and had seen it before many times. That to me says a lot.

The round also cost me a new return ticket to Europe and my fiance, who couldn't understand I wouldn't ignore the invite because she wanted me to do something else (that wasn't important).

My only criticisms of CPC could possibly be that it's not located closer to where I live now and it didn't provide me with a more understanding young lady to replace the one it so ideally relieved me of surely adding years to my life and hundreds of other wonderful golf experiences. It did save me from making a huge painful and costly mistake. I love everything about that place!

[David Davis]

Brian, to make matters even worse, she was a golfer and one of the best women golfers I've ever met. 2x Mexican National Champion (juniors)...you'd think if someone would understand it would of been her. I was lucky and have Cypress in a large part to thank for it, no kidding as I was completely head over for this lady and blind to many important things in life. Course this doesn't have much to do with CPC's architecture which in my opinion is as good as it gets, challenging, subject to the elements, full of climax and building suspense, awe, wow factor and sheer beauty plus more choices of how to play holes than you can fathom. It would be a great place to die...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan and Patrick

I think I have already made a point of indicating that with the use of tee boxes and routing ( angles into greens) all levels of play can enjoy various shot values that are created by an architect.  So i am very aware of both the average male and female golfers when determining how a hole ought to be played at various skill levels. 

In America, most players don't play the correct tees which in my opinion detracts from their enjoyment of the game. 

How do you know that ?
What scientific study substantiates your claim ?

If golfers didn't enjoy the game, they'd cease playing it.

When I was in Scotland , I had to prove that I was an accomplished golfer in order to get access to the back tees, and that is the way it should be done.

I don't agree with that.

It deprives the golfer/member of the chance to meet a challenge that's a stretch for him, undermining his aspirations.
It deprives the golfer of the opportunity to rise and meet the challenge presented by the[ longer course.

Golf is a game where the very lure, the core and essence of the game is aspiring to hit shots beyond our ability

So why should others control where you play from, especially if you're a dues paying member

Nothing worse than seeing the group in front of you all in low double digit range , playing the back tees at Whistling Straights.  It makes for a much longer day , and I can't imagine its more enjoyable to shoot around 100 instead of 85-90 from the proper tee boxes.
I've never seen that happen, yet over and over again, I hear that question posed.

I recently played Pine Valley with some very good golfers.
We played the regular/member tees.
One of the fellows suggested that we return soon, play the back tees under medal play.
My comment was that we all might play well until telephone number popped up, and then, the round would be ruined.

When you say tested mentally, you mean to overcome the grief one feels by hitting what they think is good shot , getting a bad bounce into a bunker?  Or do you mean determining from the tee that the same bunker is not a place they want to be , and choose a club that will not reach that bunker to avoid it?  I much prefer the later of the two when it comes to being tested mentally.  Strategy is very important to me when evaluating golf course design.   Luck is going to be in the game of golf regardless of design, its just a matter of how much luck a GCA wants to build into his design. 

How does a GCA build "luck" into his design ?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

David the good lord gave you two great bones that day. I enjoyed your giving credit where credit is due to that incredible piece of land and how if effected you in one of the truly most special places on earth.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()