Does Cypress Point get a pass?

[Matt_Cohn]

As shown, the bunkers are original. They were lost for a while, then restored within the last 10 or so years I think.

I believe there are some steps being taken to strengthen the cypress clump, which I think is at least partially dead or dying.

My guess is that Mackenzie didn't envision players trying to drive the ball that far on 17. It's about 260 to reach the trees, but you have to hit close to 300 to get past the trees where you have a clear shot to the green. As noted, the easiest play is about 225 from the tee leaving 150 or so in. So maybe the bunkers were Mackenzie's way of saying it was a bad idea to try to hit it that far, or that he didn't expect the bunkers to come into play in the first place because he everyone would be hitting a 225 club.

[Sean_A]

Sure, sand and trees mix in nature, but the CPC "version" of nature doesn't look in the least natural. This feature has the thumb print of man all over it. I agree with Jeff B, the concept is over-reaching, unnecessary and adds nothing to a wonderful location. Once again, how many people would play that hole without a tree and then think a tree is just what the hole needs?

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Once upon a time ... with a bit of colour now added.

atb

[Adam Clayman]

Sean, Even Seurat had to put the first dot somewhere.


To call that tree unnatural in its location, leads me to think you've never had the pleasure.?

[Sean_A]

Sean, Even Seurat had to put the first dot somewhere.

To call that tree unnatural in its location, leads me to think you've never had the pleasure.?

Adam

No, I have never been blessed with a visit to CPC. 

Ciao 

[Jeff_Brauer]

The other thing that strikes me about the trees is that he has a perfect "Cape Hole" strategy set up, and then negates it with trees that, at least now, suggest a layup.  Why negate one strategy for another in this location?

[Tommy Williamsen]

The play is to hit it just short of the trees. Love the trees, hate the bunkers. They don't add anything to the hole. Everyone who plays CPC remembers the trees. They inspire love and hate. At least one hole per 18 should do that.

[Kalen Braley]

I think we need some more side by side comparisons of that copse of trees.  To my eye, those trees look quite a bit shorter back then vs now...even if they are dying.


Then:





Now

[Mike Schott]

The other thing that strikes me about the trees is that he has a perfect "Cape Hole" strategy set up, and then negtiates it with trees that, at least now, suggest a layup.  Why negate one strategy for another in this location?

Then look at it as a risk/reward hole. A perfect drive gives you a flip wedge but you have a safer option off the tee. The other alternative is to take away Mackenzie's original intent to make it suit the modern game. To me that's blasphemy.

[Ryan Van Culin]

One other thing I always try to ask myself if I think a hazard is unfair: What if it was water?
If that was a little pond, if would be a completely different argument, but people generally accept water hazards as necessary to a golf course. At least the “double hazard” of sand and trees is still playable. A pitch-out is better than a drop in my book.

[Tommy Williamsen]

One other thing I always try to ask myself if I think a hazard is unfair: What if it was water?
If that was a little pond, if would be a completely different argument, but people generally accept water hazards as necessary to a golf course. At least the “double hazard” of sand and trees is still playable. A pitch-out is better than a drop in my book.

I’m not sure anyone is saying the bunkers are “unfair.” Golf isn’t about fair or unfair.  The bunkers are unnecessary.

[Jon Wiggett]

Of course if the bunkers were a sandy waste area in which the trees stood I am sure we would be 'all praise' about how great it looks

[Ira Fishman]

The other thing that strikes me about the trees is that he has a perfect "Cape Hole" strategy set up, and then negtiates it with trees that, at least now, suggest a layup.  Why negate one strategy for another in this location?

Then look at it as a risk/reward hole. A perfect drive gives you a flip wedge but you have a safer option off the tee. The other alternative is to take away Mackenzie's original intent to make it suit the modern game. To me that's blasphemy.

+1. It is a friggin great hole that fits the course perfectly.  Walking off of 16, you think that golfing life cannot much better, and then you walk to the 17th tee, and it does get better.


Ira

[Tommy Williamsen]

Of course if the bunkers were a sandy waste area in which the trees stood I am sure we would be 'all praise' about how great it looks

You’re right. That would seem to be its natural state. To create bunkers there seems unnecessary. I’m glad Dr Mac left the trees.

[Jeff_Brauer]

One other thing I always try to ask myself if I think a hazard is unfair: What if it was water?
If that was a little pond, if would be a completely different argument, but people generally accept water hazards as necessary to a golf course. At least the “double hazard” of sand and trees is still playable. A pitch-out is better than a drop in my book.

I doubt many would feel a little pond in that location would be a good idea in any way.  I think it was Mac who wrote that man made features usually look puny in comparison to nature, and in this case, a swimming (maybe even wading) pool pond next to the ocean would really prove that point.


I looked at Spirit of St. Andrews  a minute ago to see if he mentioned those trees.  I found this more general quote:


"Groups of trees are the most effective way of preventing players from reaching the green after playing their drives the wrong direction.  No bunkers guarding a green seem to prevent them from doing so."   


Did he really mean from the middle of the fw?  BTW, he otherwise supports using trees on inland courses, giving a few examples.  We have to believe what from this single quote?  Hitting the middle of the fw is the wrong place?  In reality, my GUESS is that they were just too pretty to cut down and he made his exception to his own general rules, which of course, is his right as gca.  Also, he had commented on not being criticized much for CP (i.e., even he thought it "got a pass" and always liking some holes that people criticized.  Perhaps 17 was his opportunity. 


So, while I don't think they are the best designed hole he ever did, I didn't say to change it.  I understand that the bunkers were probably removed after years of experience playing the hole, and it is always an interesting debate of what should rule.  Original intent is fine measure, but decades of playing experience have a role, too.  I doubt any architect gets it right 100% of the time, and time always tells.


I also agree with Matt Cohn that he probably didn't envision players getting anywhere close to those trees.  Look at where the player in the photo is aiming, and the front edge of the tee.  They seem to be clearly aiming golfers farther left than the tree clump. 


Still, I don't think the short route is wide enough to really tempt any players.  Yes, there were no statistics like we have now that tell us players need "X" yards wide to risk hitting the tee shot.  I have to believe golfers intuitively knew what was too dangerous.  It would be interesting to do a divot count on the right over the years to see how often that right side was used.

[Ryan Van Culin]

To be fair: I don’t think a little pond there would be good at all. I generally don’t like any water on a golf course, because you can’t hit out of it, haha. I actually kind of like this because it makes it a 3-dimensional hazard. If it were just a bunker, you could leave your ball 1 yard short of it and have an unobstructed approach.
If it were just trees, you could, in theory, land a ball in the middle of them, and, being <100 from the green, run something up onto the green.
I never like being forced into a layup, but it happens all the time, and when asked, we have to choose how to answer the question the architect is asking.


All that being said, I think someone should invite me out there so I can adequately evaluate this hazard. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I wrote this up on my own forum in response to someone else talking about this hole.

The bunkers are pretty irrelevant, really. The trees are the hazard - what is beneath them is unimportant. If it was fairway grass, waste bunker, ice plant, or just thick rough… it would still not really matter, because you're still behind the trees. The bunkers being there don't change the strategy (IMO) at all: it's still hit something 200, then 150. You could replace the bunkers with anything and the strategy of the hole wouldn't change.

I also wrote that I don't view this as two hazards, I view it as a single hazard with two components.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I never like being forced into a layup, but it happens all the time, and when asked, we have to choose how to answer the question the architect is asking.

All that being said, I think someone should invite me out there so I can adequately evaluate this hazard. 

Ryan,


1. I always found golfers to be like my then small children.  A smart parent once told me never to tell a child to do something, because they will rebel.  However, give them two options to choose from, clearly framing your most desired option for them in a way to make it appealing, and they happily make their choice.  Are golfers really any different


2. - You and me both.  While I have been there twice, after reading your comment, I realize I have to add, "But not in this century."  Time has really gotten away from me!

[Jeff_Brauer]

I looked at some aerials last night.  The trees are a bit further down the fw than I remembered or that they look on ground level.  Carrying them is not an issue unless you use full driver and get right up to them.  They also seemed to have changed in size as a clump over the years, and for a long time, there was no little sliver of fw to the right of them, and before that, it was probably artistic.  It never looked like a viable target to me, but I guess it was just mow lines, or to tempt someone with something they couldn't possibly achieve.


So, given the tee shots of the day, it really wasn't a bad idea.  I still think it's unnecessary but you would probably still leave the trees if building the course today, as most likely the CA Coastal Commission would make you anyway, LOL>