Should the 9's at Spyglass be flipped?

[Scott Seward]

My original contention stemmed from playing the course with the 9's flipped and enjoying that routing more. I and not disagreeing with Adam regarding some of the qualities of the back nine holes - I think 14 and 16 are great holes and I have an ace on 15 so I have a positive (though obviously colored) opinion of that hole.

I just think that 2-4 are as good as it gets - followed by a strong #1. The view from 3 tee is probably my favorite view in golf (maybe another thread?). I just wish these feelings could be experienced later in the round as I was able to do the other night.

[Michael Dugger]

Even if you reverse the nines it does not change the fact that the course has two distinct personalities.  As Mr. Doak mentioned in the "guide", it is too bad the course does not work in and out of the trees; back and forth between oceanfront/linksland and the hilly back portion of the property.

But, that was Mr. Jones prerogative, and while I've never played the course, it still looks like a hell of a ride.

There are always "what ifs", right?

 

[Tim_Weiman]

mdugger:

To one degree or another, I'm sure there are always "what ifs". I wonder if Spyglass leads the pack by this measure.

Perhaps that's another thread.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Answer to the 2 most difficult opening par 5s(according to USGA raters), both on RTJ courses in Calif-- Spyglass and Cota de Caza

[Mike Benham]

Answer to the 2 most difficult opening par 5s(according to USGA raters), both on RTJ courses in Calif-- Spyglass and Cota de Caza

Cota de Caza (North Course)?  Hmmm ... The difficulty from a rating view must be on the tee shot as it is a long carry from most of the tee boxes to carry the creek.  It is pretty straight forward after that ...

Come to think of it, what other opening Par 5's are difficult?  (new thread alert).

[Scott Seward]

Dennis - Difficulty according to the rating system is not something that is quantified hole-by-hole. If you polled the individual raters' opinions, your statement would have some validity based on their collective experience. But the computer does not spit our comparitive numbers from one hole to another.

[Mike Benham]

Even if you reverse the nines it does not change the fact that the course has two distinct personalities.  As Mr. Doak mentioned in the "guide", it is too bad the course does not work in and out of the trees; back and forth between oceanfront/linksland and the hilly back portion of the property.

The fundamental problem with the routing of Spyglass, and this impacts Mr. Doak's statement, is that the land that is not within the treeline is limited.  Assuming the land they have now is what they routed the course from, there is no way that you "could work in and out of the trees" near the "oceanfront".  At best, you are stil going to have 5 or 6 holes that are not in the trees and 12 to 13 that are.  It is also possible that additional tree clearning (right of #1, right of #6) was not an option available to RTJ.

[A_Clay_Man]

I guess I get to be the one who comes to Spy's defense? But, I need to better understand (learn) specifically what our beloved Dr. Bill means by filler? 13? 14? And while I haven't seen too many of the great courses of the world I don't know what he means  that it doesn't stack up.
My personal opinion is that the greens and uneven terrain are the keys and therefore in mine eyes a form of artistic masterpiece.

 There may also be some risidual kingdom effect with it's prox to the chapel?

I will stipulate, that the "industry", be it Pebble Beach Co. or NCGA, has dumbed down the pirate since my virgin round in 96'.

The changes at 11, and 16 have replaced the knife with a pretty flower

[THuckaby2]

Adam:

I'm sure Mr. Seward can speak to this far better than I, but it is my impression that the NCGA has little if anything to do with Spyglass these days, other than still being allowed its use for tournament play.  It would surprise the hell out of me if they had anything to do with the course changes.

But you're right - 11 and 16 are shadows of what they once were, particularly 16.  We had a discussion on that awhile back, I'm sure you remember.  I actually like the change on 11 - before it was just such a certain layup, it was boring.  Now, one can at least think about ripping at the green in two...

16 makes me sad as it is today.

TH

[Dennis_Harwood]

Scott-- Ratings are determined hole by hole by the raters who measure obsticale factors for both the scratch and the bogey golfer on each hole, with the sum totals fixing the course rating(scratch), bogey rating and slope--

 What I am refering to is the "most obstacle additions" for the scratch golfer from the championship tees (which would be proper rater terminology)-- This is what is utilized to set the "course rating"-- Of course the slope rating, which takes into account the bogey golfer is a different issue, and I am not bringing that into play--

[Scott Seward]

Dennis - You are correct in many respects. But the data is still not compared hole-by hole. Spyglass as a complete course adds more in obstacle value than most other courses in the country. I ran the numbers for the re-rate a few weeks ago and will check to see if this is still the case. There has been a "wussifying" of the course that has stolen some of that original difficulty. The latest move has all the ice plant gone to the left of number 2.

[THuckaby2]

That's all assuming those fool raters got it right that day, huh, Scott?  

Love the word "wussifying".  Can we include that in our rating materials?  Add a category for "general wussification" for re-rates?  I'll be happy to sell this to the USGA.

TH