Should the 9's at Spyglass be flipped?

« **on:** July 02, 2003, 04:03:45 PM »

Don't know if this has come up before but here goes.

I played Spyglass last night B9 first and it occired to me that I like the course a lot more this way. The F9 starts with such a tremendous stretch that in a nomal round, you are all but let down by 18 (which I find to be a weak no matter the curcumstance). Eventhough 6-9 route away from the ocean/dunes I still think they make for a better closing stretch and 9 would be a much better closer.

« **Reply #1 on:** July 02, 2003, 04:08:53 PM »

I just got back from playing spyglass for the first time and I could not agree more that the course would benifit from reversing their nines.

« **Reply #2 on:** July 02, 2003, 04:11:20 PM »

Hello Mr. Seward, old friend:

I believe this has been discussed before here. To me it makes great sense to flip the nines, for all the reasons you state. However, as I recall from the previous discussion, the cognoscenti here gave some equally valid reasons NOT to do it... All I can think of is that having #1 tee that far from the the pro shop/clubhouse/check in point (it would then be across the street, up the hill) would make things a little more difficult logistically, and the trek from 9 tee to 10 green would be significantly lengthened.... but those issues seem to me to pale to the advantages that would be gained.

Hopefully those who weighed in before will do so again. It is an interesting suggestion....

TH

ps - those course rating fellows better not have botched it a few weeks ago. What a rank lot they are... myself included, of course.

« **Reply #3 on:** July 02, 2003, 04:19:39 PM »

I thought the topic might have been discussed before but then again - what topic hasn't?

I don't buy the some of the arguments. The walk from 18 to 1 is no worse than other courses. The clubhouse could easiy have been the old NCGA office/Founders Club building which is right by 10.

« **Reply #4 on:** July 02, 2003, 04:25:58 PM »

Scott:

Those are just the weak arguments that come to my mind. I agree that each are not very valid.

Damn I wish I could remember the other reasons... I can't find anything using the search here either. Maybe I am dreaming.

TH

« **Reply #5 on:** July 02, 2003, 04:49:18 PM »

I love your thought. The middle of the back nine is perfect solid grinding golf holes which to me make sinse on the front with the more dramatic holes on the current front. I have thought about this but never articualted it.

« **Reply #6 on:** July 02, 2003, 04:58:33 PM »

As for the clubhouse issue, it's not like we're talking about moving or tearing down some special structure. The pro shop and starting area at Spyglass are very ordinary, and I'm sure the corporation has more than enough money to move everything across the road. The driving range is more convenient to the current first tee than it is to the tenth tee, but so what? At Pebble Beach, you take a van to the driving range and back. At Spyglass, they could shuttle you there in a golf cart in less than a minute.

Put me down for flipping the nines, as well.

Rick

« **Reply #7 on:** July 02, 2003, 06:30:35 PM »

It's an interesting notion and may happen, who knows? Among the early plans I'd heard was that the Forest course was going to share a (the) clubhouse with Spy. Plus, the world will change come 2016.

I think that if the member's Clubhouse became that clubhouse then the first tee should be the current tenth. The demands on the current 10th hole tee shot are considerable for a 1st tee and the green is a very subtle deceptive one. The walk from the current 18th over to the first is all downhill and is no biggie.
But the biggest obstacle to having them laugh in your face with this idea is that invariably the customer raves about Spyglass, and when you get that many people who rave, it's hard to rock the boat.

A big garrish new clubhouse wouldn't befit the Del Monte forest either.

« **Reply #8 on:** July 02, 2003, 07:57:50 PM »

Tom Huckaby:

It will sound like I’m beating a dead horse, but the routing issue at Spyglass is a perfect example of why I’d like to see industry participation in our discussion group increase.

The case against the routing plan RTJ laid out – brilliant start followed by big letdown – seems so strong that I’d love to know what Jones was thinking. My speculation is that he consciously chose not to compete with the dramatic finish next door, but I have nothing to back it up.

In any case, by this point it seems Spyglass has found its place in the history of golf architect and despite its flaws I’d leave it alone. It just doesn’t represent a course for designers to emulate….at least when it comes to the idea of following such a dramatic start with such a relatively big letdown. I wonder if C&C had the negative example of Spyglass in mind when they worked their way in and out of the sand hills at Friar’s Head?

« **Reply #9 on:** July 02, 2003, 09:32:48 PM »

Quote from: Tim_Weiman on July 02, 2003, 07:57:50 PM

It will sound like I’m beating a dead horse ...

You're right ...

« **Reply #10 on:** July 02, 2003, 10:39:04 PM »

The Spyglass remedy is simple: Require a flask filled with decent Scotch Whiskey at No. 1, to be taken at Nos. 6-9 until empty. This procedure will have the effect of dimming the lights on 10-18, which, as we all agree, is where the layoyt suffers most.

Here, by the way, is one of my all-time favorite quotes anytime, anywhere in/about the game and its courses:

"If it were human, Spyglass would have a knife in its teeth, a patch on its eye, a ring in its ear, tobacco in its beard, and a blunderbuss in its hands. It’s a privateer plundering the golfing main, an amphibious creature, half ocean, half forest."

-- Jim Murray, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times

« **Reply #11 on:** July 03, 2003, 12:04:52 AM »

Having just worked the State (two weeks ago) as an Official, I am afraid most of the very top amatuers in the west would strongly disagree with you--

In discussions with many of them concerning their view of the course and comparing it with Pebble(the other qualifying site) the universal opinion was that, as to routing and as a course, Spyglass held its own with Pebble--and perhaps its strongest feature was its current routing starting with the dunes holes and finishing with the forest holes the way it does.

Played from the tips with fast green speeds and difficult hole locations one of the most frequent mentioned pluses of Spyglass was the flow creating a great pattern for stroke play--

Their view was that from the tips the dune holes tested the golfer from the start as to his strategy-- Being generally shorter holes the player could attack the course, with the resulting disasters that await if his play be too bold and he does not hit the great shot--

Their belief is that 14-18 create much stronger finishing holes to attempt to make up strokes, or hold a lead, than 6-9--

From the tips with tucked hole locations 14, 15 and 17 and even 18 with the hole in front or back left offer birdie opportunities, but firing at the flagstick can create disaster on all--It the kinds of holes a player who has a shot or two to make up wants, while the leader does not have a piece of cake--

To reverse the nines would break the flow that is Spyglass.

I respectfully dissent to any view to reverse the nines!

(BTW-- RTJ felt a great course should start with a very difficult par five, and two of the most difficult par 5 starting holes in the US (according to USGA course rating teams) both designed by RTJ are in California, Can you name the holes?

« **Reply #12 on:** July 03, 2003, 12:29:34 AM »

I will not support revsersing the nines either. But, this does not undo a lack-luster back nine (certainly not all, but no where near the elegence and excitement of the out nine).

I will support tearing down the clubhouse and re-locating it. I'll begin in the morning.

P.S. Pebble's routing is much more clever than Spyglass's. I have never been able to place the cause, but it is likely that Neville had more of a blank canvas compared to Jones as much had already been built and developed by the time RTJ came along.

« **Reply #13 on:** July 03, 2003, 01:32:56 AM »

Quote from: Dennis_Harwood on July 03, 2003, 12:04:52 AM

(BTW-- RTJ felt a great course should start with a very difficult par five, and two of the most difficult par 5 starting holes in the US (according to USGA course rating teams) both designed by RTJ are in California, Can you name the holes?

Spyglass Hill and Valencia CC?

« **Reply #14 on:** July 03, 2003, 08:19:48 AM »

While this esteemed panel can get away with calling the backnine weak, the typical client never has that thought. I think it's an over simplification and is only weak in comparing to the first 5.

Even with the severe softening of the 16th each and every hole on the backnine has it's own soul and/or character. With the greens being the icing on the cake, especially the 18th.

Standing on one tee, if the player is forced to wait( on a clear day) the view is as sublime as any in the game.

« **Reply #15 on:** July 03, 2003, 08:31:50 AM »

Adam Clayman:

My only rounds at Spyglass were years ago before any changes to #16. That hole sure played tough and the entire finish certainly was no piece of cake.

Comments about the letdown have always been "relative" in my mind. The opening holes are just so powerful on the senses that one hates to leave them behind.

Cypress Point has a small touch of this feeling with #18, but I've always liked the hole as a way to cool down emotionally. By contrast, at Spyglass one goes well past the point of emotional cool down. One has a sense of disappointment throughout much of the round.

« **Reply #16 on:** July 03, 2003, 08:36:49 AM »

I would go one step further. I would start Spyglass at the current 7th hole (it's near enough the clubhouse that you could do this). Under this arrangement the current 1-6 would provide a climatic ocean finish much like CPC and make for a better rhythm to the routing. A 3-4-3-4 finish would be an unusual end to a championship course and add to the characterer and uniqueness of Spyglass. The current 6th would make a fine finishing hole.

Adam - nothing is weak with the inward half at Spyglass. It is just that a compelling argument can be made that Spyglass as a whole could be made even better with the ocean holes appearing later rather than earlier.

JC

« **Reply #17 on:** July 03, 2003, 09:02:59 AM »

Jonathan- My own opinion is that had they kept with the dunesland theme, the course would be another CPC. But, since it is what is, speculating on what could've or should've is really just mental masturbation.

I think there's a chance for a fix. If the Monterey Pine succumbs to the pitch cancre, the current areas that hold those trees could be made to look like a pine barrens (duh) and will somehow come closer to the dunesland look that captivates us, the minutia militia.

How ingenius is the guy who built the house on 16? When the forest goes, he'll have an ocean view.

Going hole by hole I think the only one that could be considered weak is the 7th. I don't agree, but can see why people would say that. But a funny thing is that watching the boys play that hole in the 2001 at&t, when they all put their hands on the ball, through the green, not one of those pros made eagle and few birdied. That green is a real beast as is the 17th's, another potential "easy" tagged hole.

I honestly have never heard any player say a negative while walking off the 18th. And if some is let down, it goes more to their expectations than the quality of golf.

« **Reply #18 on:** July 03, 2003, 09:18:10 AM »

Tim:

Yes, you really are beating a dead horse. And as I said in the other thread, when did I ever say we SHOULDN'T have more industry participation? I am, was, remain all for that. You and I likely differ on the means on which to make that happen, and the tradeoffs we are willing to make to facilitate that, but the fact that having more would be a good thing is a GIVEN and I'd truly appreciate it if you gave me a break and let this die the death it deserves.

That being said, these are all great thoughts re Spyglass, a course that I go back and forth on, loving and hating. I never have been able to decide just how I do feel about it, and I've been lucky to play it many times over the last 25 years. The current 1-5 are so powerful, that yes, anything after it necessarily has to be a letdown... but damn, there is a lot of good in the current 6-18, so maybe all it does need is a re-rout... and for that, I like Jonathan's idea of starting on the current #7. It sure as hell could be done. But maybe Dennis is right and it's fine how it is. I really don't know...

One way or another, this all to me is kinda nit-picking, as relative to the VAST majority of other courses here in CA or nationwide really, Spyglass is damn good just as it is. But nitpicking about great courses is what this site is all about, so pick away!

TH

ps - Tim, you're not gonna get more knowledgeable "industry participation" re Spyglass than Adam Clayman, Scott Seward and Dennis Harwood unless we resurrect RTJ. So just what is the problem here?

« **Reply #19 on:** July 03, 2003, 09:24:57 AM »

I will speak to the routing here, not individual holes specifically. The routing IS weak on the "in" bunch. In all resprct to Adam, he has looped Spyglass so many times that his opinion is tainted by this "inside" perspective.

I'd place my money with the hundreds of golfers I've talked with who have played there one to ten times. Their viewpoint is almost always the same: "Great course"...."loved it"....."gee, once you get back in the woods there are only a couple of exciting holes". Now, I fully expect these folks (including me) would find more interesting nuances each and every time we play there. But this is not a reality for most at Spyglass. We play it seldom and must make our judgement based on that frequency.

The comments about the "in" nine are typical. In no way does it make the course bad — just distinct in that it so awsome at the start, and that it could have been so much better with more attention to the second portion.

« **Reply #20 on:** July 03, 2003, 10:29:54 AM »

You're right Forrest, I have been around Spy alot. But the proof of the inward holes lies in the lies. The shotmaking requirements are just as strong as the first five holes. Just because the view changes and the surrounds turn to pine scrubb does not minimize the need to be fully aware of all the variables. One issue the inward holes have that the ocean holes dont, is the unpredictability of the swirling wind. And when a player of outstanding quality has difficulty figuring the wind's influence, it goes along way to provide the variables for mystical divot taking.

« **Reply #21 on:** July 03, 2003, 10:38:38 AM »

Oh boy...here we go!

« **Reply #22 on:** July 03, 2003, 10:47:20 AM »

Nahh, we've battled this too many times before and redanman's aversion to all things CA is documented and well-known. He's such a good guy that we forgive him this foible.

But just to give him some more fuel, I'd have to say at the very least that whether it was lifted from PV or not, Messrs. Doak and Kidd would happily have #4 on their courses to the north.

TH

« **Reply #23 on:** July 03, 2003, 11:16:09 AM »

I believe, Tom, that just by virtue of Spyglass being west of the Mississippi River it deserves a few points higher in any rating. True?

« **Reply #24 on:** July 03, 2003, 11:18:38 AM »

Forrest: of course it does. And west of the Rockies gets more points. West of Lake Tahoe gets even more.

I dunno if the Glass is top 20 in the country, probably not. But Top 100 I could make a very strong argument for. That's good enough for me.

As for the "CA coastal effect", well... real or not, I enjoy the surroundings here.

TH

News:

Scott Seward

CJ72

THuckaby2

Scott Seward

THuckaby2

Tiger_Bernhardt

Rick Shefchik

A_Clay_Man

Tim_Weiman

Mr_Chill

Forrest Richardson

Dennis_Harwood

Forrest Richardson

David Kelly

A_Clay_Man

Tim_Weiman

Jonathan Cummings

A_Clay_Man

THuckaby2

Forrest Richardson

A_Clay_Man

Forrest Richardson

THuckaby2

Forrest Richardson

THuckaby2