[Patrick_Mucci]

I now believe that the best set of par 5's reside in Monterey, California at Cypress Point.

I also believe that the back to back par 5's at CPC, #'s 5 and 6, rival any back to back par 5's anywhere, including Seminole and Baltusrol Lower.

What's hard for me to believe is the pure genius it took to route and design CPC without the use of modern technology.

How the ODG's conceived the routing and saw the individual holes on that raw unadulterated land is beyond me.

I marvel at how architects have the "vision" to see the holes and connect them to produce a great routing, especially on highly contoured land.

[Bill Brightly]

have changed my mind.



What's hard for me to believe is the pure genius it took to route and design CPC without the use of modern technology.

How the ODG's conceived the routing and saw the individual holes on that raw unadulterated land is beyond me.

I marvel at how architects have the "vision" to see the holes and connect them to produce a great routing, especially on highly contoured land.

Yes, Raynor was an excellent router.

[Bill_McBride]

I really love the tee shot on #2.  The bunkers on the left hillside beckon, but a conservative play down the right center is the play.

Five and six really are good holes.  I like the feeling that you can blow your tee shot on six over the bunker to the right.  I also like the way you walk up above the sixth green to play your tee shot on seven.  

Ten is the only hole you might call weak of the four.  I think it's easier to make four there than on the long par 4 eleventh that plays in the opposite direction.  

You're right about the routing, it's pure genius how the GCA takes you from the bowl into the forest, back out at #8, back in at 10, back into dunes land for 12-14, and then the thrilling ocean front finish 15-17.  Who routed it, Mackenzie or Raynor?  

[Tim_Weiman]

have changed my mind.

I used to think that Ridgewood and other AWT courses had the best set (4) of par 5's.

I now believe that the best set of par 5's reside in Monterey, California at Cypress Point.

I also believe that the back to back par 5's at CPC, #'s 5 and 6, rival any back to back par 5's anywhere, including Seminole and Baltusrol Lower.

What's hard for me to believe is the pure genius it took to route and design CPC without the use of modern technology.

How the ODG's conceived the routing and saw the individual holes on that raw unadulterated land is beyond me.

I marvel at how architects have the "vision" to see the holes and connect them to produce a great routing, especially on highly contoured land.

Pat,

To me that is the best part about the ODG's.

I'm pretty sure that if you show me a piece of land I can find a few holes. But, to put the whole course together without moving all kinds of dirt is the real achievement in my book.

Sadly, the process they went through is very poorly documented.

It is the biggest gap in golf architecture literature.

[Jim Nugent]

have changed my mind.



What's hard for me to believe is the pure genius it took to route and design CPC without the use of modern technology.

How the ODG's conceived the routing and saw the individual holes on that raw unadulterated land is beyond me.

I marvel at how architects have the "vision" to see the holes and connect them to produce a great routing, especially on highly contoured land.

Yes, Raynor was an excellent router.

I'd love to know if that is true. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat - I think most architects "see" things differently now. Their awareness/knowledge of 60 years worth of earth moving and site mapping technology and techniques can't but precondition their "vision" -- and that "prejudice" for lack of a better word can only be offset by a conscious and concerted and sustained effort NOT to fall back on that awareness/knowledge. If I'm camping and I have matches in my pocket and a couple of pre-fab, easy-burning logs at my feet, I wouldn't even think of looking for some flint rock and kindling, and after several years of starting a camp fire that way I would no longer even NOTICE the kindling all around me. 

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

The advantage the ODG's had was they had little in the way of constraints, yet I marvel how they were able to "see" holes on uncleared, raw land.

The routing over the terrain at CPC is nothing short of brilliant.

The quality of MacKenzie's courses is outstanding.
ANGC is another course over highly contoured land where a great routing and terrific individual hole designs are in evidence.

But I think CPC was on a far more difficult piece of property.

Bill McBride,

The tee shot on # 2 was also one of my favorites.
I tend to like tee shots that provide the golfer with a "decision" tree and that hole is perfect in that regard.

Too many people focus on # 15, 16 & 17 and ignore the abundance of great holes on that course

[Carl Nichols]

..... just got back from a great trip to the West Coast?

[Dave_Miller]

have changed my mind.

I used to think that Ridgewood and other AWT courses had the best set (4) of par 5's.

I now believe that the best set of par 5's reside in Monterey, California at Cypress Point.

I also believe that the back to back par 5's at CPC, #'s 5 and 6, rival any back to back par 5's anywhere, including Seminole and Baltusrol Lower.

What's hard for me to believe is the pure genius it took to route and design CPC without the use of modern technology.

How the ODG's conceived the routing and saw the individual holes on that raw unadulterated land is beyond me.

I marvel at how architects have the "vision" to see the holes and connect them to produce a great routing, especially on highly contoured land.

Pat
Had the opportunity to play Cypress twice.  It is the best course I have ever played.  It is great.
Dave

[Keith Grande]

have changed my mind.



What's hard for me to believe is the pure genius it took to route and design CPC without the use of modern technology.

How the ODG's conceived the routing and saw the individual holes on that raw unadulterated land is beyond me.

I marvel at how architects have the "vision" to see the holes and connect them to produce a great routing, especially on highly contoured land.

Yes, Raynor was an excellent router.

I'd love to know if that is true. 

Apparently, Raynor routed the course, but died before construction began.  I'm not sure how many holes, however were used in hte final design, as there are references to Marion Hollins hitting balls to the 16th green site with Mackenzie at her side.

[Tim_Cronin]

, Libertine (hello to Jean Shepherd fatheads out there.)

[Mike Hendren]

Patrick, you have surprised me twice on this thread:

First, I can't fathom the Augusta nursery being a better site than the Cypress Point Club's.  On soil alone it's almost a no-brainer.   At its essence the Georgia site is a relatively steep and long hillside.  Plenty of opportunities there to screw up a routing in my opinion.

As for the strength of CPC's par fives, arguably the worst three shotter down the road is a bit is better than the best three shotter at CPC.   Like Bill McBride posted the tee shot at CPC's 2nd is among the best in the game, but it's pretty pedestrian thereafter.  I'll concede CPC's 5th but is the 6th not obsolete since one can easily sling a big draw off the tee without giving the fairway bunkers a second thought?  Must agree with Bill again regarding the 10th.  Heck, there are a handful of par fives in the architectural wasteland of Nashville, Tennessee that are better.

I'd put Plainfield's par fives ahead of CPC's just to use an example in your architecturally rich neighborhood. 

Since I easily miss things, I'd love to hear your support your contention.

Bogey

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, you have surprised me twice on this thread:

First, I can't fathom the Augusta nursery being a better site than the Cypress Point Club's. 

The CPC site is a far more hostile site than ANGC.

In addition it has a road that bisects the property twice.

On soil alone it's almost a no-brainer.   At its essence the Georgia site is a relatively steep and long hillside. 

While ANGC has pronounced elevation changes, they don't compare to the sharp/steep in lines at CPC

Plenty of opportunities there to screw up a routing in my opinion.

That's true of almost every site

As for the strength of CPC's par fives, arguably the worst three shotter down the road is a bit is better than the best three shotter at CPC.   

Be specific, which ones ?

Like Bill McBride posted the tee shot at CPC's 2nd is among the best in the game, but it's pretty pedestrian thereafter. 


Pedestrian ?
When's the last time you played it ?
The slope of the fairway/rough, bunkering and spine short, right of thegreen make it a quality hole and not pedestrian by any measure.


 I'll concede CPC's 5th.

 but is the 6th not obsolete since one can easily sling a big draw off the tee without giving the fairway bunkers a second thought? 


Not necessarily, especially when the wind is in your face.
But, that can easily be remedied by adding length at the tee should the club choose to do so.
Tell me what par 5's down the road haven't been lengthened since inception ?

Must agree with Bill again regarding the 10th.  Heck, there are a handful of par fives in the architectural wasteland of Nashville, Tennessee that are better.[

It's difficult to craft one good par five, let alone four.
Every par five can't be a 10.
While # 10 might be # 4 of 4, it's still a good par 4 considering it's land locked/color]

I'd put Plainfield's par fives ahead of CPC's just to use an example in your architecturally rich neighborhood. 

Not even close, and I like the par 5's at Plainfield
# 12 at Plainfield isn't an original hole, rather a hybrid, a combination of the original/s, a par 4 and a par 3.
# 8 ? ? ?

Since I easily miss things, I'd love to hear your support your contention.


Always happy to further your education 

[Mike Hendren]

IMHO, ranking best against best then moving down the list.

PB 18 v. CPC 5th - PB 1 Up
PB 6 v CPC 2 - PB 1 Up
PB 14 v CPC 2 - PB 1 Up
PB 2 v CPC 10 - PB  2 Up

If you want a better argument compare the par fives with Augusta's and tell me why the latter doesn't win 4 up.

Bogey

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bogey,

Why did you Gerrymander the order ?

Why don't you rank them as they fall on the course/card ?

Or would you lose or tie that comparison ?


IMHO, ranking best against best then moving down the list.

PB 18 v. CPC 5th - PB 1 Up
PB 6 v CPC 2 - PB 1 Up
PB 14 v CPC 2 - PB 1 Up
PB 2 v CPC 10 - PB  2 Up

If you want a better argument compare the par fives with Augusta's and tell me why the latter doesn't win 4 up.

TV exposure for one.

Played from the members tees, are you sure about your claim.
ANGC has been lengthened to meet the demands of the modern Tour Pro.
CPC undertook no such endeavor.

Bogey

[Mike Hendren]

Pat the margin of victory doesn't change when you take the holes in order.  Nor does it change when you take them in reverse order.  Nor does it change if I draw numbers out of a hat.  

You have not answered my question regarding Augusta, instead relying on the tired tactic (albiet thinly veiled) of noting that you've played the course while assuming I have not.  Let's see your Augusta v. CPC match play in any order you wish from any tees you choose.  

I don't see a single compelling 2nd shot on any of the par 5's at CPC and Brad Klein, among others things that an important criterion for such holes.  I'm surprised that a very good player like you is a sucker for easy three shotters. 

For a change why don't stay in the room after tossing the grenade?  As the old football cheer used to go:  You can do it.  You can do it.  Come on show us you can do it.

Bogey

[Bill_McBride]

Pat the margin of victory doesn't change when you take the holes in order.  Nor does it change when you take them in reverse order.  Nor does it change if I draw numbers out of a hat.  

You have not answered my question regarding Augusta, instead relying on the tired tactic (albiet thinly veiled) of noting that you've played the course while assuming I have not.  Let's see your Augusta v. CPC match play in any order you wish from any tees you choose.  

I don't see a single compelling 2nd shot on any of the par 5's at CPC and Brad Klein, among others things that an important criterion for such holes.  I'm surprised that a very good player like you is a sucker for easy three shotters. 

For a change why don't stay in the room after tossing the grenade?  As the old football cheer used to go:  You can do it.  You can do it.  Come on show us you can do it.

Bogey

The uphill second on #5 can be challenging, have to carry those cross bunkers. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat the margin of victory doesn't change when you take the holes in order.

Of course it does, unless you're declaring that # 2 at PBGC is better than # 2 at CPC. 

Nor does it change when you take them in reverse order.  Nor does it change if I draw numbers out of a hat.

I happen to like # 2 at PBGC, but, I think # 2 at CPC is the better hole.

# 6 at PBGC is All-World, no doubt about that.

# 14 ?
I'm still debating the merits and demerits of that hole.
Is there anything exciting about the drive ?
Is there anything exciting about the second shot ?

I don't believe there is.

What makes the hole ?
A small, volcanic like green, with a useless left front 1/4, perched up above the fronting fairway ?

As to # 18, I like that hole, but am not sold on the component parts.
The drive is confronted by the Pacific on the left, two trees in the right side of the fairway, a flanking right side bunker and OB ?
The second is.............. fairly benign.
The third is framed by the Pacific, a large tree, a fronting bunker and a sloped green.

Is it that great ?

Again, I like the hole, but, are you looking at the Pacific on the left or the hotel rooms on the right ?  

You have not answered my question regarding Augusta, instead relying on the tired tactic (albiet thinly veiled) of noting that you've played the course while assuming I have not.  Let's see your Augusta v. CPC match play in any order you wish from any tees you choose.

OK.

# 2 at CPC is a better hole than # 2 at ANGC.

Tell us, what's so great about # 8 ?

# 13 is a wonderful par 5, unique in many aspects and probably All-World.

# 15 is a good par 5.
Is it a great par 5 ?

Isn't the decision to lay up or go for the green what elevates both # 13 and # 15 ?
Isn't the TV exposure and drama of the Masters what elevates both # 13 and # 15.

# 5 at CPC is as good, if not better than # 2 and # 8 at ANGC. 

I don't see a single compelling 2nd shot on any of the par 5's at CPC and Brad Klein, among others things that an important criterion for such holes.  I'm surprised that a very good player like you is a sucker for easy three shotters. 

Let's see, on # 2 I hit drive, 3-wood, 5-iron to a green that's got plenty of slope.
How is that an easy par 5 ?

On # 5 I hit drive, 3-wood and had an interesting decision for my 3rd.
To go right, under or over the intruding tree ( lots of thoughts about that tree)
And, that's another interesting green.

On # 6 I should have challenged the right side fairway bunkers.
I could have carried them.
Instead I pulled my drive trying to turbo boost it.
Hit 3-iron low to avoid the trees, and caught a limb, then bunker then green then bogey.

On # 10, drive, 3-wood, 9-iron to another pitched green.

Are not # 13 and # 15 at ANGC considered easy par 5's ? 

For a change why don't stay in the room after tossing the grenade?  As the old football cheer used to go:  You can do it.  You can do it.  Come on show us you can do it.


There's another factor you're missing in your CPC vs ANGC comparison.
The climate and wind.
The ball doesn't travel as far in that cool (56-68 degree) weather.
The air is heavy sea/mist/fog air and the ground, despite the drought, isn't F&F like it is in Georgia.

For the amateur golfer, those are four good par 5's, with # 2, # 5 and # 6 being a notch above # 10.

Bogey

[Mike Hendren]

Good stuff Pat.  I knew you up to the challenge!

Bogey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()