[Ian Mackenzie]

I have only played CPC once.
Loved the experience, but questioned the closing two holes. Much has been made of #18 certainly, but my issue is with 17.


If you designed and built a hole like that today, would it be ridiculed?

I mean...look at it. 386 yard par 4. Yes, the Pacific Ocean is on your right, and it’s rare earth for sure.
But your tee shot must confront several trees RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of the fairway. Wait...are those bunkers IN FRONT of the small forest?

You mean, I can be in a bunker in the middle of the fairway and have trees in front of me on direct line to the green?

Look at this:https://youtu.be/CxbKKfKSl0w

Can a “top 25” course get away with having a weak hole?

[Matt_Cohn]

Originally there was a hittable fairway to the right, correct?


It seems odd that the target on your drive is quite far left of the cliff, but it wasn't always that way.

[J_ Crisham]

I have only played CPC once.
Loved the experience, but questioned the closing two holes. Much has been made of #18 certainly, but my issue is with 17.


If you designed and built a hole like that today, would it be ridiculed?


I mean...look at it. 386 yard par 4. Yes, the Pacific Ocean is on your right, and it’s rare earth for sure.
But your tee shot must confront several trees RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of the fairway. Wait...are those bunkers IN FRONT of the small forest?
You mean, I can be in a bunker in the middle of the fairway and have trees in front of me on direct line to the green?Look at this:https://youtu.be/CxbKKfKSl0w

Can a “top 25” course get away with having a weak hole?

Ian,   
    I try to stay left of the Cypress trees and that leaves anywhere from a 6-9 iron second shot on 17. You must be far enough left or you will be blocked or worse in the sand you mentioned . As an aside , my playing companion in February hit an aggressive cut off the tee up the right side- he narrowly missed jarring his 2nd shot. I tell you this because he is a fellow GVC member- in fact Alex considers 17 at CPC to be his favorite:)

[Terry Lavin]

Just focus on the eye candy...and try to keep your head down!  The course is so beguiling that one forgives the fact that the last two are worthy of Poppy Hills, not CPC.  Truth is, very few awesome courses lack a shitty hole or two. It’s easier to digest if they are early or in the middle of a round. That said, Cypress is my second best ever played.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I had a weird day with a caddie at CPC.
After hating my 3 lb walking/stand bag and getting another one for me to use, it was a struggle with him.


And I was striping it that day....


"JB, what do we got?" (From middle of FW)


"It's a 117 shot."


""Played how - in air, on ground, trapped, faded....just give me yardage and I will figure it all out."


Grumble, grunble...


I step off 16 (after a par) and I'm one under.
I look for my caddie and he's 100 yards down 17 already. I look up at 16 tee and see my driver.


"JB, I need my 4 wood please!!"


"I only give driver on 16!!"


I take driver, swing easy and put my well-struck shot right in the middle of that mess of sand and trees. Card a double...;-)
Couldn't advance the ball. I was in San Quentin.

[Peter Flory]

Would you rip them out? 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Perhaps not.


However, unqualified as I might be to comment intelligently, I might not place bunkers in places where forward access is blocked definitively by an imposing cluster of trees.


The hole is already majestic with the ocean on the player's right and a prevailing wind that makes a 386 yard par 4 something to think about.


Why place a "double hazard" in the middle of the fairway?


My question was:


If that feature was done today - a group of trees RINGED by bunkers - would it be panned here?


When I played it, I hit my tee shot into the cluster, had an unplayable lie, chipped out sideways, knocked it on the green, two-putt....6.

[Steve Salmen]

Any idea what the 17th hole would fetch if the Club decided to sell it to a housing developer for 3-5 homes?

[Kalen Braley]

I unintentionally went down the right hand side....after my first tee ball found the water and my 2nd barely stayed dry.


P.S. To address Ians questions, wasn't that particular stand of Cypress much shorter and less wide from side to side when the hole was originally done?  Perhaps the crew needs to brush up on it Bonsai skills with those trees...cause I think it would be a shame to eliminate them all together...

[Adam Clayman]

Even if it's not to your liking, the strategic nature of the double hazard is not wrong. Failure to maintain the width of a double fairway, is wrong. Emasculating the justification for a center line hazard, reducing the number of options, and, dictating the line (and distance) of the tee shot.     

[Ian Mackenzie]

Even if it's not to your liking, the strategic nature of the double hazard is not wrong. Failure to maintain the width of a double fairway, is wrong. Emasculating the justification for a center line hazard, reducing the number of options, and, dictating the line (and distance) of the tee shot.     

I appreciate the input, but it does not address the (flawed?) premise of the thread: If this hole was built today (not on the Pacific) and some GCA called for a grove of trees - in the middle of a fairway ringed by bunkers, would it be panned here?

[Adam Clayman]

The answer is yes and no. If it was done more than once or twice in the round it might be cry down. There's no formula on which parts makes the best whole.

[Peter Flory]

When were the bunkers added?  Very recently, right?.  Maybe they were added to keep balls out of the grove of trees to protect them? 

[Pete Lavallee]

From Geoff Shakelford's Cypress Point book the bunkers were originally there. They were not there when I played it in 2003; they were in the process of restoring all the bunkering using the book as a guide at that time.  In fact the assistant superintendent was holding it while spray painting the outline for 14's green side bunkering.

[Ira Fishman]

Even if it's not to your liking, the strategic nature of the double hazard is not wrong. Failure to maintain the width of a double fairway, is wrong. Emasculating the justification for a center line hazard, reducing the number of options, and, dictating the line (and distance) of the tee shot.     

I appreciate the input, but it does not address the (flawed?) premise of the thread: If this hole was built today (not on the Pacific) and some GCA called for a grove of trees - in the middle of a fairway ringed by bunkers, would it be panned here?

If C&C, Doak, or Hanse built it, it would get praised here.  If Fazio did so, it would get trashed.   


Ira

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()