The new Cypress Point

[GeoffreyC]

Mike H- you were THE MAN on 16!

I did not see the Miller photo that resembled the one from 9 tee that you refer to.  Here is 15.




They both look pretty good to me! Actually the resemblance is remarkable.  Kudos to the workers at CP as well as Mike Miller.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Here are two views of #13 by Michael Miller:

circa 1920's:



circa 1930:



compare to:



Again, they are scary identical.  When did it ever have the scruffy look?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Hendren;

What a spoil sport you are!  

All;

Another view;

First, A Mike Miller;



Then, what it looked like in modern times BEFORE the work.



Fiinally, the pic we all know and love of two GCAer's standing on the 9th tee figuring out whether to hit their drivers into the left or right gunk and wondering how the hell they got so lucky as to be standing there in the first place.  

[THuckaby2]

That's my take also... when I saw the re-done bunkers on 13 in person I too thought back to those Miller paintings and "scary identical" was exactly what I thought... Thanks for posting these!

It's the same thought I had with the bunkers on #10 at Pasatiempo - scary identical to the pics from the 30s that are in the clubhouse.

BTW, how can one even look at the bunkers on 13 with such awesome beefcake in the foreground?  

TH

[Darren_Kilfara]

You know what I don't like? The new(/old) bunkers appear to be saying, "Don't look at the Pacific Ocean, the lovely dunes, native grasses, cypress trees, and all of the other wonders of nature on the Monterey Peninsula - LOOK AT ME!!!" I look at the recent photo of #13, and all I can see are the damn bunkers. If that's the way that the Good Doctor intended them to look, then I think I'll have to respectfully ask the Good Doctor to posthumously write himself another prescription. I thought he was supposed to be an expert in camouflage or something...

Seriously, I reckon that the bunkers will begin to blend in with their surroundings over time. But at the moment, I don't like the look of them, insofar as I can gauge their appearance from a couple of photos (and compare them to how the course looked when I got to play it, 12 years ago).

Cheers,
Darren

[THuckaby2]

Darren:

Wasn't the Good Doctor's idea that the bunkers should blend into the surroundings and thus make the "look" be dunesland that flows down to the sea?

Look either Miller painting - to my eye, that's exactly what happens.  It looks like chopped up sand dunes, with nothing else behind... thus a green set in the dunes, with the ocean behind... even though the reality is that that green is not close to the ocean at all, with 17 Mile Drive and a big beach behind it before one gets to the water....

You don't see it that way in the photo with the two studs, because it's taken from 8 green, looking past 9 tee, so from above and way to the right.  Standing in the fairway, the "look" is indentical to that in the Miller paintings... and thus to me works, very well.

TH

[Darren_Kilfara]

Tom,

Isn't the photograph of #13 green taken from the exact same angle as the Miller painting of said green (the first one posted by Mr. Cirba)? Anyway, the effects work in the Miller paintings because they're much more impressionistic than photo-realistic. What I see - again, strictly judging from the photograph - does not work. For me, anyway.

Cheers,
Darren

[Brad Swanson]

Mike C.

The more glaring difference to me in those 2 pics are the apparent maintenance meld.  Brown and "linksy" in the first vs lush and green in the more recent pic.  Any clue if the course used to be kept "less green" in the past than it is now?


Cheers,
Brad Swanson

[THuckaby2]

Darren:

To my untrained eye, the angle of the 1920s Miller painting is from LOWER than that of the stud-featured photograph.  That is, the angle of the painting seems to come not from standing on 8 green, but perhaps on 9 tee (some 15-20 feet lower down the hillside?).  Thus you don't see the grass on 14 and the road beyond, which you do in the stud photo.  You see a sorta skyline dunescape, as was the Doctor's intent (I think).

Of course this is shown perfectly in the 1930s painting, which is the perspective from the fairway, and to me, works perfectly - AND is a very accurate depiction of what one really does see standing in the fairway today.

TH

[Dan Grossman]

Darren,

The bunkers (IMO) don't look too bad when viewing from the fairway or the tee.  Here is a recent shot (June) from the tee.  

[THuckaby2]

GREAT pic, Dan.  That to me shows perfectly what I have been trying and failing to describe... The green sets up as a hollow in the dunes, with dunes and nothing else behind, obscuring the reality of what really is behind the green.  The effect is even better from the fairway, being so much lower than the tee.

TH

[Dan Grossman]

From the fairway:

[THuckaby2]

Fantastic - thanks again, Dan!

OK, so from this, one can really see how the "skyline" effect is achieved.

But this brings in another potential issue... the contrast between the gunk on the right and the manicured perfection of the bunkers does appear too startling.  I trust that the bunkers will evolve over time to look more like the crap on the right... that would be better, no?

TH

[RJ_Daley]

Anxiously awaiting submission of uncle Boab's report from yesterday's round!

As Brad mentioned above, he detects to his eye a greater impact on his acceptance of the look as an overly green presentation which was somewhat diverse from his ideal that he had developed in his mind, obviously through previous views of various pictures.  I think that we can not emphasis enough that we as enthusiastic connoisuers of golf course design who look at pictures of legendary courses that we generally only get to dream of playing, develop a mental ideal.  We see the awesome interpretations of a Mike Miller, or we see a dramatic photo from the past that was taken when the sky and sea were just right to portray some combination of color and hue, and we imprint that as what we EXPECT TO SEE, when we finally get our once in a lifetime shot at playing there.  (so much more good fortune for those that have ability to see the course often in various light and weather and seasonal conditions)  I think there is something going on with all these pictures that suggests the interaction of the blue-green contrast particularly with the color of "the white with foam" ocean surf as we see in the stud photo VS Miller's interpretation.  Then there are the clouds and the sun.  Because the sand is particularly lucent bright at high noon, one gets more glare, yet at dawn and dusk with the right color of sunrise and set in the clouds, a reflection from the sand would be likely where the hues are suggestively blended with the grasses, trees and ocean color blocks to give that warm and fuzzy feeling.  

Finally, in looking at the 15th that GC posted above, I think it is interesting that the sand to the right of the green in the photo is somewhat more tan and not so glaring white like the sand to the left of the green.  The tan is more a tie in to the foreground rock sandstone washout and cypress log.  But, the sea foam in the backround and the sky cloud hues soften the overall impression of the landscape to not jump out at you like the high noon glare effect.  Lengthening shadows and intermitent cloud cover hues and shade create a more soft and colorful effect like the ideal that the artist seeks in his painting and sometimes are captured in photos like 15 above.  Those tend to imprint on us folks that have keen interest and become our ideals.  Then if you play at noon, you may have this reaction like Mike C stated on the first page where we see too much stark crisp contrasts.

[Mike Benham]

Mike C.

The more glaring difference to me in those 2 pics are the apparent maintenance meld.  Brown and "linksy" in the first vs lush and green in the more recent pic.  Any clue if the course used to be kept "less green" in the past than it is now?


Cheers,
Brad Swanson

Brad - I believe the photo with the 2 studs in it was taken in March of this year and there was more than ample rain.

Mike

[THuckaby2]

Mike B. is correct, it was March, there had been a bit of rain, and those are two studs.

 

TH

[Bob_Huntley]

RJ_Daly wrote;

"As Brad mentioned above, he detects to his eye a greater impact on his acceptance of the look as an overly green presentation which was somewhat diverse from his ideal that he had developed in his mind, obviously through previous views of various pictures.  I think that we can not emphasis enough that we as enthusiastic connoisuers of golf course design who look at pictures of legendary courses that we generally only get to dream of playing, develop a mental ideal.  We see the awesome interpretations of a Mike Miller, or we see a dramatic photo from the past that was taken when the sky and sea were just right to portray some combination of color and hue, and we imprint that as what we EXPECT TO SEE, when we finally get our once in a lifetime shot at playing there.  (so much more good fortune for those that have ability to see the course often in various light and weather and seasonal conditions)  I think there is something going on with all these pictures that suggests the interaction of the blue-green contrast particularly with the color of "the white with foam" ocean surf as we see in the stud photo VS Miller's interpretation.  Then there are the clouds and the sun.  Because the sand is particularly lucent bright at high noon, one gets more glare, yet at dawn and dusk with the right color of sunrise and set in the clouds, a reflection from the sand would be likely where the hues are suggestively blended with the grasses, trees and ocean color blocks to give that warm and fuzzy feeling."

After my hurried round yesterday I think RJ has hit it on the head. We played in a fog most of the round and the brilliance of the new sand was somewhat muted by the lack of direct sunlight. One other thing to remember, is that the sand for all the courses in the forest came from the dunes along what is now Spanish Bay. The new sand is from outside scources and Jim Langley tells me it takes five to seven years to get its mellower look.

Jim also told me that the restoration work is in the hands of the super, Jeff Markow, although I am sure modesty prevents him from claiming a great deal of credit for the research that has and is going on.

When it comes to the "green" vs "brown' look, one has to remember that we have here on the Monterey Peninsula a peculiar phiiosophy concerning water. The 'green' activists have prevented building a new dam on the Carmel River. I won't go into all the ramifications and law suits taking place all of the time but golf courses are affected thus.

The Pebble Beach Company raised million of dollars tthrough a bond issue to build a desalination plant for golf course water use. Problems arose due to their inabilty to reduce the mineral content of the water that was having a deleterious effect on the grasses. The courses were then given permission and an allocation of potable water from Cal Am Water Co., to use a certain number of acre feet to flush the bad stuff away. If the courses don't use their specified allotment when allowed, their allotment is then reduced by some formulaic figure.  So when playing CPC, Pebble, MPCC, Spyglass, Poppy Hills and Spanish Bay, there are going to be days when you think you are playing in the wetlands.

I shall be off to St. Andrews in a few hours for ten days of  firm and fast.

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff Markow is quite a talented fellow!  I hope some of our other construction/design restoration achitects and contributors on GCA will wade through all these pages and comment on the contruction technique found in the photos on the first page of this long thread.  Maybe I am wrong, but that looks like pretty radical thinking in using the molded granite-fiberglass forms.  Does anyone in the business know of such a concept?  Is Mr Markow pioneering this technique.  The overall concept of creating free form underlying structure skeleton that may offer resistence to errosion while providing drainage and allow pockets to plant sea grasses vegitation and create the foamy wave like immitation seems apparent as the goal attempting to be accomplished.  But, has Markow invented something new here in bunker construction technique?  

I shall be off to St. Andrews in a few hours for ten days of  firm and fast.

Boab, CPC followed by TOC?  I think you must be obsessed or possessed, but in a good way...

[Joel_Stewart]

Jim also told me that the restoration work is in the hands of the super, Jeff Markow, although I am sure modesty prevents him from claiming a great deal of credit for the research that has and is going on.

Jeff and his crew are performing all of the work but they also have someone (can't remember his name) from Palm Desert in as a consultant.  I know they are rushing to finish up before a big member guest in early October.

[Patrick_Mucci]

One other thing to remember, is that the sand for all the courses in the forest came from the dunes along what is now Spanish Bay.

The new sand is from outside scources and Jim Langley tells me it takes five to seven years to get its mellower look.

Hmmmm, where have I heard this before  

Is this a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing ?
or, much ado about nothing

[HamiltonBHearst]

Pat-thanks for once again focusing the board on specifics.  I wish some would do a little research.  Sorry the direction always has to come from you.

[George Pazin]

So that's what satisfies you? One confirmation of one of your hypotheses - on sand color, no less (I thought looks didn't matter to you, it was all about playability) - somehow invalidates the informed opinion of John Bernhardt? He somehow "rushed to judgement" by bringing this interesting information to the groups' attention?

You are right, a double standard exists. It's just not the one you thought. I see where the double standard is....

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

I'm begining to think that you "don't get it" or aren't reading these posts from start to finish.

Many of the complaints/criticisms were of the color of the sand.  Yet, many of the early photos and paintings exhibited, showed white sand.  I indicated that new sand is:
New sand, and that, over time, it is altered in both appearance and play, especially in that location, hard by the sea.

I also asked John, you and others, a number of questions with respect to the bunkers, that were never answered.

Since the "color" issue was the first issue raised, and subsequently answered, as I knew it would be, it would seem that the "color" issue was, "much ado about nothing"

With regard to the other issues, until the questions regarding them are answered, one can't draw prudent conclusions with respect to their impact on playability and strategy.

You're prepared to take the word of anyone who parrots the popular refrain.

But, I would offer you the following, just because Tommy Naccarato likes the Fazio bunker work at Winged Foot, doesn't mean that his word is the absolute word in that regard.  Questions remain unanswered, and opinions differ, as do conclusions, especially since Tommy has seen Winged Foot but once, after some of the work was done, hence he is deprived of knowing first hand what existed prior to the work.

We also witnessed a good deal of debate with respect to Merion and Bethpage.

I can't fly out to the Monterey Penisula to inspect the work done and in progress, so the only way that I can improve my understanding of what is/has happened is to ask questions, and, until those questions are answered to my satisfaction, I'll have to withhold judgement, unlike others, who relish leaping in to condemn any and all work done on certain golf courses.

And, just because John Bernhardt has provided his assessment at Cypress Point doesn't mean that it is the
absolute word on their bunker work.

I noticed that you defended Oakmont on the rough, fairway, and greens thread, but remained silent on the Forecaddie's thread which would seem to be at odds with your take on the custodialship of Oakmont's golf course.

Try to view these issues in both specific and global terms, and rather then just disagree with me because you like to, examine the content of my point/s.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Is anyone else disturbed about the idea of comparing a real golf course to a fantasy image in a painting while making critiques?  Those capable should at least post the black and white photos of the real thing from Geoffs book (with copyright permission, of course) for comparison over the decades.

It seems the super is trying to emulate the edges he saw in the old photos.  Some he got dead on, others less so.  There may have been dead trees, roots, sprinklers or pipe, or bird habitats to work around for all I know!  Also, when I do jagged bunkers,  I know that they can look good from one angle, and look different from another.  In some of the differences, he may have looked at if from a different angle.

I doubt it will be possible to get the true dunes look around the green.  The greens sprinklers and their drift probably aren't good for the native veggies that once grew there.  So, as a practical matter, the course is probably greener than it was in the old days, and there probably needs to be more turf and refinement versus some of the dunes.

[George Pazin]

George Pazin,

I'm begining to think that you "don't get it" or aren't reading these posts from start to finish.

Many of the complaints/criticisms were of the color of the sand.  Yet, many of the early photos and paintings exhibited, showed white sand.  I indicated that new sand is:
New sand, and that, over time, it is altered in both appearance and play, especially in that location, hard by the sea.

I also asked John, you and others, a number of questions with respect to the bunkers, that were never answered.

Since the "color" issue was the first issue raised, and subsequently answered, as I knew it would be, it would seem that the "color" issue was, "much ado about nothing"

With regard to the other issues, until the questions regarding them are answered, one can't draw prudent conclusions with respect to their impact on playability and strategy.

You're prepared to take the word of anyone who parrots the popular refrain.

But, I would offer you the following, just because Tommy Naccarato likes the Fazio bunker work at Winged Foot, doesn't mean that his word is the absolute word in that regard.  Questions remain unanswered, and opinions differ, as do conclusions, especially since Tommy has seen Winged Foot but once, after some of the work was done, hence he is deprived of knowing first hand what existed prior to the work.

We also witnessed a good deal of debate with respect to Merion and Bethpage.

I can't fly out to the Monterey Penisula to inspect the work done and in progress, so the only way that I can improve my understanding of what is/has happened is to ask questions, and, until those questions are answered to my satisfaction, I'll have to withhold judgement, unlike others, who relish leaping in to condemn any and all work done on certain golf courses.

And, just because John Bernhardt has provided his assessment at Cypress Point doesn't mean that it is the
absolute word on their bunker work.

I noticed that you defended Oakmont on the rough, fairway, and greens thread, but remained silent on the Forecaddie's thread which would seem to be at odds with your take on the custodialship of Oakmont's golf course.

Try to view these issues in both specific and global terms, and rather then just disagree with me because you like to, examine the content of my point/s.

I thought your retort on the other thread was funny, but it is nowhere near as hilarious as this one. You questioning my interpretation of the posts is laughable.

You are the one characterizing the discussion as centered initally around the color of the sand. I actually read the posts by Joel, John, Tommy, etc. There were comments about the sand color, the shape of the bunkers, how they affected play past & present and comments about the apparently different method of bunker construction. If you think the posts were primarily about the sand color, you are the one who needs to read the posts more thoroughly.

The questions that you asked John began in earnest, yet as he addressed each one, you peppered him with more & more questions that grew increasingly sillier. This was even noted by another poster.

Where in the world do you see any sort of endorsing "parroting the popular refrain" in any of my posts, on this thread or any other? I simply pointed out in my initial post that you overlooked both John & Tom H's posts regarding how the different bunkers may or may not have changed the playability of the course. If I were as cynical as some regarding posters' intentions, I might believe that you were trying to sweep their posts under the rug, but fortunately we can all see them there in black & white.

Unlike you, I don't believe in reading into any posters' minds when they choose to comment, or not comment, on something on the site. I didn't comment on the later Oakmont thread for two reasons: 1) I spoke with several people at the event & they asked me not to post specifics fro the future online - if you were to reread the Oakmont rough thread, you would note that I specifically didn't discuss what changes may yet happen. 2) I personally thought the speculation was a bit reckless, especially by an anonymous poster. I don't feel the need to defend or deny everyone on this board, especially anonymous posters. I feel it's best to ignore them. We're all adults here & can form our own judgments as to the merits of any particular post or thread.

I don't unilaterally accept anyone's judgment, especially where deep passions are involved. I do, however, respect their opinion & their right to it, unlike some people.

I don't disagree with you because I like to. In fact, when you stick to commenting on golf courses, design aspects, theory, etc., I think you are among the more thoughtful & passionate posters on this site.

As for your fear that I "don't get it" or don't read posts from start to finish, well, let's just say I'm not losing any sleep over that.