[Anthony Gray]

Did you make three?

Nope - par.

   

[DMoriarty]

This is supposed to be an iris? I don't get it.  He is one of my favorite artists; really he is.  But this "iris" has always bothered me, along with a few of his others.  It doesn't even look like a real iris.  What is with the jagged edges and the flecks of red and brown and orange? Looks more like a ripped-and-used-blue-hanky than an iris.  And why is everything outlined in dark blue, even what I guess are supposed to be grean leaves?  Green leaves with dark blue outlines?  And is that supposed to be another "iris" in the upper right, or is it a big, crooked "B?"  Maybe it is a joke?  A "B" instead of painting a bee?   Or maybe he forgot his name?

But that's another issue.   As for the supposed "iris," it's as if he outlined first, then filled it in, like a small child.  I guess that is what he did at the asylum-- finger paint.  And the background--  did the asylum have a surplus of the puke yellow finger paint?   And what about the composition, or should I say lack thereof?  It is all just iris.  Or dirty hanky.  I am not even sure, but either way it doesn't look real to me.

Anyway, it is nothing like nature.  He should have never painted it, or made it smaller, or at least made it better.  It doesn't fit.

No.  I've got to say.  I love his work, but this "iris" just doesn't make any sense to me at all.  What am I missing?

.
.
.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Bogie and Tom I would like to think Mike would have made his 4. I have hit a number of pretty good shots in that bunker when the quartering wind push them just enough to miss the green. It also means you cleared the water which is no small feet on that line.

[Wade Whitehead]

There's something strange about superimposed straight lines on CPC 16.

I've never seen the hole in person and may not ever; however, I don't intend to be thinking analytically or mathematically if I'm ever so fortunate.

WW

[Ian Andrew]

I was there today and after monitoring this thread they have made the appropriate changes.

Well done gentlemen!



...and Bogey, they have asked you to come back to right that terrible wrong!



 

[Alex Miller]

Haha, Ian you had me worrying they actually did do that! Nice job 

But I think that picture shows how important the bunkers are to the hole visually. No matter what is done with the front one in question, the look they create can't really be replicated

I only mention this because someone mentioned that those back bunkers were poor architecture too. I respectfully disagree with that opinion!

[Philippe Binette]

The bunkers behind the green are dissapointing because of the way they look,
position wise they are perfect both for the location in the hill and strategically because it would be too easy to just blast something past the green and then chip back on the green (especially if the tee shot was downwind and the chip from over the green into the wind.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Oh you mean the front left now called the center bunker. I thought you were really talking about the right bunker which is closest to front. Ups never been in that one though.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

Obviously you are very good with Photoshop. Any chance you could take that photo and photoshop a greenspace "kickup" about a quarter to a third of the way up that natural incline behind that green and then take it both right and left and as far in front as you dare? Forget about strategic ramifications for the time being----let's just start with green space "scale" on a natural landform as aweswome as that one! 

[Jim_Kennedy]

The sixteenth at Cypress, AKA "The Hole That Can't Be Ruined". 

I think it's a testament to just how good the bunkers look, and must play, that they haven't changed much in ca. 80 years.
Actually, I think the only reason they have been judged as 'disappointing' is because of the loss of depth perception in the modern photo. Contrast the two.     

[TEPaul]

Ian:

What you need to photoshop into that photo on post #54 is some real green expansion to the right, maybe a bit on the left and some in front (false front) and then take that green up in the rear into a massive "kickup" considerably over the heads of those golfers!

That is a huge natural scale panorama out there and the green itself needs to hold its head up to that. There was very little to no sand naturally out there on that promontory pre-golf course. That is a fantastic ROCKY promontory and the golf architecture should feature in spades JUST that! That green should be much bigger to match that remarkable panoramic scale and impressive rocky promontory and it should follow its terra firma as much as possible including right, left, front and particular rear into a big impressive "kickup"!

Mackenzie is probably my favorite architect ever, but, in my opinion, putting those flashy sand bunkers around that PARTICULAR green setting (where there was no natural sand like there was on most of the rest of the site pre-golf course) is like putting makeup, eye shadow and big eyelashes on the Mona Lisa!

[TEPaul]

It may be of some interest to note that the green design of Mackenzie's first of two design plans for CPC had a green in the same spot for #16 that looks to be a large and inline hour-glass or Figure Eight shape!  The hole also appears to be a par 4 at that point (at least in its primary iteration) even if as Geoff Shackelford surmised in his good book "Alister Mackenzie's Cypress Point Club" it may've been a par 4 at that point as much for marketing reasons as anything else.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()