[David Stamm]

This is a "for fun" question for everyone. Would today's engineering methods and materials allow for Mackenzie's original concept of building the 18th tee on the rocks behind the present tee? How realistic could this be?

[Lou_Duran]

Engineering and materials, yes.  Regulation, absolutely not.  I am doubtful that CPC or PBGL be developed today in similar form.  Based on a talk I had with the superintendent at Spanish Bay a couple of years ago, it is a wonder what they got out of that site and that he is able to maintain it in playable conditions.  I think MacKenzie would have left CA if he had to work under present circumstances.

[Bob_Huntley]

The California Coastal Commission was introduced into the psyche of the State to prevent the prostitution of the the coast as to what happened to Malibu and the crap along the Pacific Coast Highway.

It became instead a bureaucratic nightmare of nut case greeners denying any sensible development from ever happening. Originally, there remit was coastal, it increased to one thousand yards from the coast and then demanded access to lands miles from the coast.

The absolute absurdity of this was when they felt that it was necessary to deny a building permit to someone in Big Sur, because a boater at sea would be upset to see a building on the mountains on the mainland. Thankfully a jurist on the 9th District said "get lost."

The Pebble Beach Company are jumping through hoops to get the Fazio course approved... it is going to be a tough job.


Bob

[Jim Nugent]

David, how much would such a tee change the hole?  Improve it?  

[Tommy Williamsen]

I think the tee would not really have changed the hole that much.  But it certainly would have been more exciting.

[Jon Spaulding]

Dave, scan in the photos from "my" Doak book....(just kidding) of the bridge concept and the original look of the hole with the bunkers within the trees. Engineering-wise the bridge would be a slam dunk, as structural engineering concepts/materials rarely change.

But as BH says the coastal commission would shoot the thing down....but then again they allowed 140 homes within 30 feet of the sand at my beloved "Strands" beach in Dana Point, so you never know.

The greatest benefit of the bridge would be having to hit a driver on the 18th instead of a 4 iron and a wedge.....and all those tourists could watch you do it from the parking lot....

[Thomas_Brown]

I listened to a Stanford podcast last night on the rebirth of the Monterey coast.  During Q&A, evidence of golf course runoff damage was asked - as you might suspect, the conventional wisdom on that side was overwhelmingly negative - although they did admit evidence or case studies are almost impossible to cite.

[Lou_Duran]

Jon,

I am awed by you guys who hit 4 iron, wedge to CPC #18.  I am not particularly short (#9 is drivable for me, #10 is a driver, long iron) but I have no problem hitting a driver on 18, followed probably by a 7 to 9 iron to the wonderful uphill green site.

The biggest objection to the hole, I think, is the location of the trees in the fairway.  I think I can still easily cut a drive over them so they don't bother me much, but I can see why the membership has problems with them.  The back tee would give justification for their removal, and perhaps bring the right side of the fairway more into play.  I don't remember how far back the rock is, maybe 50 yards?  But even if it is feasible from a regulatory standpoint, is it really worth the effort?  For the sake of the members, cut the offending trees down and maybe plant replacements on the peripheries.

Thomas,

Intentions are all important to these otherwise well-reasoned folks.  Study results in most social sciences can typically be interpreted or nuanced to support whatever point of view the principals hold.  My own participation in numerous social psychology experiments in undergraduate school left me highly suspicious of much what is published and peer reviewed in this area of academia.

Meaurable physical data is harder to discount, but one can always make the argument that the potential consequences, known or theorized, are so great that no risk exposure is acceptable.  As a real estate practitioner I hate to think how much of my clients' money I've had to spend in environmental studies because of absolutely remote chances of contamination suggested by past uses of a site.  

It will likely never happen in CA, but a way to get around the problems with such groups as TCCC is to have property owners seek and obtain relief on the theory of eminent domain (adverse taking of property rights).  If the government- meaning the taxpayers- have to compensate the Pebble Beach Company for effectively turning valuable private property to public use at the market price of the highest and best use, it/we may think a little bit harder about these groups' raison d'etre, their methods, and most importantly, the results they achieve on our behalf.  

[Brad Tufts]

Whats the deal with the Fazio by PBCo.?  I feel like for some reason this is the first I've heard much about it....

[Jon Spaulding]

Lou, remember that a lot of today's 4-irons are yesterday's 2 irons....and a pitching wedge is Ben Hogan's 8-iron! 18 is all about line....and I actually enjoy the 2nd shot and the final walk. The tee shot is a little hokey, but manageable if you can move the ball left-right. I asked Dave to scan in some photos (from Shackelford's golden age), which show the trees on the right of the hole encased in bunkers.....not that it changes the hole at all, but it sure looked great.

I believe that the "island" where Mac wanted to put the tee would have made the hole far less of a dogleg to the right. Perhaps the next gca guy that plays at CP can get a picture of it, in relation to the existing tee.....

[Nick Pozaric]

No matter what is or could be done to 18 do you agree that no matter what it will always be a let down compared to 15-17?

[Brian_Sleeman]

Here's the only photo I have of it, though this was taken from outside the property after my round.  

[Jfaspen]

No matter what is or could be done to 18 do you agree that no matter what it will always be a let down compared to 15-17?

I can't think of too many holes that wouldn't be a letdown after 15-17..

From what i've heard/read/seen (pictures) of the current/proposed 18 at CPC.. The new tee box would make for a more demanding/thrilling shot and would also incorporate the ocean (although not primarily as a hazard) in the playing of the hole.  

jf

[Pat Howard]

I believe that the "island" where Mac wanted to put the tee would have made the hole far less of a dogleg to the right. Perhaps the next gca guy that plays at CP can get a picture of it, in relation to the existing tee.....

Actually, I believe placing a tee on the rock would have made the hole a slightly sharper dogleg. The rock is back and to the right of the existing tee if you are looking down the hole.

If I'm not mistaken, MacKenzie decided against the tee because of the damage that winter storms would cause.

[PThomas]

if nothing else, it would be one hellua walk back to that tee!

[Kevin_Reilly]

They could use astroturf like the tee on that course outside Chicago (name escapes me) that is frequently pictured here.  

[Jon Spaulding]

I believe that the "island" where Mac wanted to put the tee would have made the hole far less of a dogleg to the right. Perhaps the next gca guy that plays at CP can get a picture of it, in relation to the existing tee.....

Actually, I believe placing a tee on the rock would have made the hole a slightly sharper dogleg. The rock is back and to the right of the existing tee if you are looking down the hole.

If I'm not mistaken, MacKenzie decided against the tee because of the damage that winter storms would cause.

The winter storm concept is speculation by Shackelford in the CP book, not a MacFact. The book states that the tee would be back approximately 50 yards, and that the idea was kept alive with plans being drawn as late as 1931.

I agree with Shack's opinion. There is no way a suspension bridge would have lasted 2 winters in this area. If anyone wants to see why, go to surfline.com and find the video of "Ghost Tree", which is one of the premier tow-in surf spots in the world. The waves get up to about 50 feet, which would take over either of the islands shown in the photo.


Thanks for the photos. Moving the tee back 50 yards would make it a better hole and put the turn in the dogleg out of the landing area (for most). Hitting a 3-wood/driver from the island, out to the flats, and then a short-mid iron up to the green might have made this a more memorable finisher.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

It would surpase the walk to 15 tee, from 15 tee to 15 green, and the most famous walk from 15 green to 16 tee as well as the walk from 16 green up to 17 tee as the best walk at Cypress. I also like the one from 8 green to 9 tee for hanging around. Then there is the 7 tee area and the 10th tee. Hmmm there are alot of great walks on that course.

[Lou_Duran]

Tiger,

Care to quantify the proportion of CPC's reputation and standing attribatable to its surroundings?  If you lifted the site from the boundaries to the Pacific (which, by local rule, is part of the course) and set it on the east side of the mountains, what would be its overall GW rating?

As one who has played the course many times, what do you think of #18 and how would you change it without going out into the ocean?  Would the hole be more highly regarded if it was earlier in the round and not the the last one?

Curiously, I don't remember hearing complaints about the 18th holes at Inverness or Olympic-Lake (except for the pin position a couple of times).  Both are short holes with green sites that are probably less demanding than CPC's.  Could it be the offending trees in the fairway at CPC?  Would some great looking difficult center bunkers, possibly en echlelon, do the trick?

[James Bennett]

If you lifted the site from the boundaries to the Pacific (which, by local rule, is part of the course)

Re the Pacific Ocean and Cypress Point.  The Ocean is not out of bounds.  And I don't think the Ocean is deemed to be a hazard (I need to check a score card).  If that is so, does that render the Ocean 'casual water'?  If so, I 'lost' about three balls in casual water.  

"lost"? - well I knew where they were, they were just irretrievable.

James B

[Sean Leary]

It would surpase the walk to 15 tee, from 15 tee to 15 green, and the most famous walk from 15 green to 16 tee as well as the walk from 16 green up to 17 tee as the best walk at Cypress. I also like the one from 8 green to 9 tee for hanging around. Then there is the 7 tee area and the 10th tee. Hmmm there are alot of great walks on that course.

Tiger,

You know damn well it can't be considered a great walk on GCA.com if you have to walk BACK to a tee like you would have to on 18.  It would be flowus interruptus to the maximus.  Would ruin the entire golf course, I would imagine

[Lou_Duran]

James,

I've asked a couple of times on this site why one can't drop a ball at CPC #16 where the ball crosses the land to the left side or long of the green.  Apparently, the subject matter is touchy or perhaps unclear.  The limited response I got was that the ocean is deemed to be part of the course.  Under the lost ball rule, one has to hit it from the original spot with a one stroke penalty.

It is possible to find an unplayable ball left of the green, short of the waterline and be able to play that shot from dry land by going backwards on a line intersecting the position of the ball and the pin.

I am unaware of other clubs which treat property that is not owned or leased as part of the course.  I am curious why and when CPC adopted this rule.  It does make #16 among the most penal holes in the world.  If #17 had not lost some of the right side of the fairway to erosion, that rule too would come more into play there.    

[Tom Huckaby]

Lou:

Every once in awhile a light bulb goes off.  I think I figured out why CPC would want to call the ocean around 16 part of the golf course, besides just to be quirky.

If it's played as water hazard (yellow stakes), once you drown one, you're drop is probably right there on the tee.... unless you cross the hazard and go back in, which of course is possible given the angle of the land and slope of it down to the water near the green.  But that could get difficult to see... And if it is water, you'd need to know clearly what happened in order to know where to play next.  Same thing occurs re land to the left and long... if it's water, you need to know for sure if it went in to know where to play next shot.  And that to could get difficult to tell for sure.  

And why does this matter?  BECAUSE UNDER THE RULES YOU CAN'T HIT A PROVISIONAL!  Once you drop on the tee, that's it, you're hitting three.  If you can't see the results of the shot clearly, you might want to walk all the way up there to make sure where it went, or try to find the ball in a playable state, or whatever...

Call it part of the course, and you don't necessarily need to know the immediate fate of the tee shot... you can hit a provisional and take it from there.

Thus calling it part of the course saves time and makes things crystal clear.

No?

[Mike Benham]

For the surfers on the board, the swell pictured here must have meant that Ghost Tree was on ...[/i]

[Marty Bonnar]

Bloomin' 'eck!
Looks like the good members of CPC have been reading GCA this last year. In TOTAL SECRET, they have built the proposed tee, re-aligned the 18th fairway and MOVED THE GREEN down in front of the Clubhouse. Looks like a bloody nice golf-hole. Does this mean it's officially now the BEST 18-hole golf course in the world?



Mind-boggling what oodles of money can do.

FBD.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()