[Tommy Williamsen]

Looking at the drone video I was surprised to see bunkers around the trees on the 17th fairway. I played the course about 30 years ago and don't remember them being there. We have discussed many times about being penalized twice by having trees in the way of hitting out of a bunker. The trees themselves are controversial what say you about the bunkers?

[Brad Tufts]

I've only played it once, but I admit it's weird.


All-world location and vibes, etc., but that gnarly group of trees is downright weird for a 380y hole.


I get that the right fairway was once bigger, and that strategy makes sense...dare you to hit it there to avoid messing with the trees.  But now you'd only find that area if you missed and got lucky.


As far as I see it, if you go center or left from 220-280y off the tee, you are playing through/around/over the trees.  Going over is far from easy, as the trees are big and need perhaps a wedge to clear...but you are likely 150y from the green so no luck there.


Maybe the play is two 4-irons?

[Ryan Van Culin]

I’m new here, but I don’t know if I agree that it is uncommon to have a tree in or past a fairway bunker. I know for sure at Sweetens Cove, I had to hit a fairway bunker shot between 2 trees.
That being said, I wouldn’t consider that any more severe than if I were in a pot bunker and had to pitch out sideways. Seems to me you could do that at CPC.
It seems to me (unrelated to your post) that we have become accustomed to the idea that we should always be able to reach the green after a poor tee shot.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Ryan, what does the bunker behind the tree accomplish? If you are behind the tree without the bunker it is still a pitchout.

[Rick Shefchik]

I thought the trees were a bad idea when I played the course, and I still do. One or the other -- trees or bunkers. I'd prefer the bunkers.

[Adam Clayman]

Bunkers have been there for 20 years, at least and I suspect much longer.


We've discussed this type of feature before and as I recall, this specific hole exercise resulted in me thinking The good Dr. use of this centerline feature, added variety, created a strategic choice/option and was only used once on this design. Therefore completely acceptable.


If a player doesn't think this hole through properly, or, has their risky effort thwarted by this feature, they deserve whatever difficult recovery they're stuck with.

[Kalen Braley]

If we brought back the good Dr, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't approve of the current setup and how large those trees and branches have become.  In older pictures from inception that copse is a lot smaller and not nearly as imposing...

[Brad Tufts]

It's funny...I don't mind playing over/under/around trees on 18, but on 17, a showcase coastline hole, I think the trees detract.


I'm totally fine with a central bunker feature...I just think that the hole should be an exercise of the beckoning sea, and strategy promoting challenging the ocean.  When I had to fit a wedge over one branch and under another, and hope i somehow landed on the green...that was a headshaker.

[Terry Lavin]

Trees that block access to or egress from bunkers ought to be eliminated. Even Jim Nantz called them “vertical hazards,” which is a golf oxymoron.


Having said that, my round at Cypress was my second favorite round of golf in my life. Spectacular first 17 holes. Epic. So, to answer the question, yes I give Cypress a pass. They can hug those poorly located trees all they want.

[Peter Pallotta]

Of course it gets a pass -- it's Cypress Point!
That's what it means to be a "Cypress Point" -- you get a pass.
Invent a formula to re-make golf courses (and people) into Cypress Points and you'd be a trillionaire!
All anyone really truly wants in life is to get a pass.


 

[Tommy Williamsen]

I actually like the centerline trees. I challenged the water on the right and had a clear shot. My buddy hit it behind the trees and hooked his second shot around the trees. That after hitting ten balls in the ocean with short weak slices on 16!!

[Ryan Van Culin]

Ryan, what does the bunker behind the tree accomplish? If you are behind the tree without the bunker it is still a pitchout.

This particular tree was in the midst of a vast waste bunker. I would say while the sand produce a hinderance to the strike, the tree is a directional hinderance. Being in the trees isn’t always a pitch out, nor is being in sand.
Also, it is a par 5, so being forced to lay up isn’t the worst thing in the world. Without the tree, it being a flat fairway waste area with no lip in play, I would have been free to hit any club I wanted. The tree narrowed my options to a pitch out, or low iron shot hooked around the tree.
Either way, a fair penalty in my book for missing the ample fairway by 25 yards. 

[Kyle Harris]

It's been discussed but the case against the so-called "double hazard" is a poor one.


You can see the trouble, avoid it if it's so odious.


Plus the "double-hazard" meltdowns I've seen are some of the funniest in golf.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Ryan, 17 is a par four and the fairway is not very wide off the tee. There is no hitting through the Cypress Trees. Don't get me wrong, I think the trees make for a unique hole. The bunkers are just one penalty too many. Every course should have at least one head-scratcher, and this is Cypress'.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The trees/bunkers appear to be about 250 from the tee, but if you lay back to 215, you have about 150 yards to the center of the green, so that's the play I imagine makes sense. I'm not a big fan of laying up, but you're forced to here, as the fairways left and right of the bunkers are only about 20 and 10 yards.

I don't think things like this have to conform. Tons of great courses have quirky stuff. The Old Course has you hitting over a hotel - how is this any different? Oakmont has the Church Pews and its ditches. Hoylake has its "cops." The Old Course has you hitting across the play of other holes, too. Cypress has B2B par fives and par threes. North Berwick has three or four quirks. The list goes on, no?

In other words, I don't think "gets a pass" makes sense to me. It not only gets a pass here, I think it's part of what makes it what it is. Remove the trees and maybe Cypress Point feels less than, perhaps?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just guessing, but wonder if the sand bunkers were added because they know the trees are in poor health and soon to die?  Given they have probably been somewhat controversial and not everyone likes them, perhaps they installed sand bunkers as an eventual replacement?

[Tom_Doak]

Ryan's view coincides with my own.  Sand and trees are both naturally occurring elements of golf courses, so inevitably they will mix occasionally.  Those who decry double hazards see golf courses as artificial, where every element is controlled by the rulesbof fair play, but Nature and life are not always fair (from our narrow perspective).


However, Ryan, be warned that most good golfers will not come around to our side.  I had a brief debate with Jack Nicklaus about this on the 16th hole at Sebonack, and he was totally on Tommy W's side.  There was an open sandy scrape at the edge of the trees, and I had suggested making it a bunker, but Jack ruled that out "because double hazard".  I asked if that meant we had to grass over the sandy spot, and he said no, if it wasn't a formal bunker then it was okay.  I still do not understand his logic, but there was no sense in arguing after he agreed we could leave the sand.

[Tom_Doak]

Just guessing, but wonder if the sand bunkers were added because they know the trees are in poor health and soon to die?  Given they have probably been somewhat controversial and not everyone likes them, perhaps they installed sand bunkers as an eventual replacement?

Why wouldn't you just wait?


There were most likely bunkers there in the beginning that have been restored, but the trees have just grown to the point where they interfere more.  And as noted, they have lost one optional route around the trees to the relentless pounding of the Pacific.  I do not know if Monterey cypress trees are protected inside the 17-Mile Drive but it wouldn't surprise me.

[Ira Fishman]

Trees that block access to or egress from bunkers ought to be eliminated. Even Jim Nantz called them “vertical hazards,” which is a golf oxymoron.


Having said that, my round at Cypress was my second favorite round of golf in my life. Spectacular first 17 holes. Epic. So, to answer the question, yes I give Cypress a pass. They can hug those poorly located trees all they want.

+1. Judge, what was your first favorite round? Mine was Lahinch on a late afternoon summer day.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

I'm inclined to agree with Erik.


It's not too unusual for Golden Age courses and prior to get a pass on these kinds of things, and that's great.  I just don't  understand the double standard of why this kind of quirk is no longer OK in most cases. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I looked at Geoff S Cypress Point book, and yes, it does look like there were bunkers there originally, with a bit wider fw on either side.  Trees looked similarly substantial in those old photos.


Geoff's caption reads, "The bunkers under the trees were designed for aesthetic and directional purposes, but are often mistakenly thought to have been placed merely to punish."


Hmm. It seems no matter what the intent there, they do punish!  And, not sure how much aesthetics would need to be added on one of the worlds most beautiful natural holes.   Lastly, the picture from the tee shows the green side bunkers very visible, but the original bunkers under the trees are just seen as "slivers" of sand, and the camera is elevated above the normal golfers eye level. They look puny compared to the backdrop and foreground, and even the trees themselves.


Between concept and details, perhaps this is not Mac's best moment?  Of course, given everything, its probably the one place he could, as the thread title suggests, get a pass?

[Tommy Williamsen]

The pictures that Jeff referenced.

[Tommy Williamsen]

[Terry Lavin]

Trees that block access to or egress from bunkers ought to be eliminated. Even Jim Nantz called them “vertical hazards,” which is a golf oxymoron.


Having said that, my round at Cypress was my second favorite round of golf in my life. Spectacular first 17 holes. Epic. So, to answer the question, yes I give Cypress a pass. They can hug those poorly located trees all they want.

+1. Judge, what was your first favorite round? Mine was Lahinch on a late afternoon summer day.





Ira

Sand Hills

[Ira Fishman]

Trees that block access to or egress from bunkers ought to be eliminated. Even Jim Nantz called them “vertical hazards,” which is a golf oxymoron.


Having said that, my round at Cypress was my second favorite round of golf in my life. Spectacular first 17 holes. Epic. So, to answer the question, yes I give Cypress a pass. They can hug those poorly located trees all they want.

+1. Judge, what was your first favorite round? Mine was Lahinch on a late afternoon summer day.





Ira

Sand Hills

Ah, a bucket list course that I doubt I will cross off the list.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()