[Ran Morrissett]

Both Crystral Downs and Cypress Point enjoy spectacular property that is windy and yet, the greens at each are markedly different.  Why?Are CD's brutal greens because of Maxwell and/or was Alister just in a kinder, gentler mood at Cypress? It seems to me CP's greens (in the context of his career) are subdued.

[T_MacWood]

There has been a theory that MacK deliberately softened the greens so they wouldn't compete with spectacular scenery. That has always made sence to me, until I read this question and now I wonder.MacK was designing wild greens long before his association with Maxwell. If there is another reason, someone familiar with his other Californian efforts might have the answer.The 8th and 9th it seems to me are exceptions. What about his other collaborations with Robert Hunter, what are those greens like? What about Marion Hollins influence, I know I sure wouldn't have wanted to cross her, yikes.

[John Sessions]

Whose greens are more severe: Pebble or Cypress?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Ran,It's an interesting point you raise, and there is some clarification needed regarding Cypress as these are issues I have been researching for my book on the course.Greens 7 and 8 have seen signifcant change. The whole front tier on 7 was abandoned and partially filled in for unknown reasons(thus explaining the tiny size of this green). #8 used to have a four or five "step" green and the silly back left pin used to be the ninth tee.Green #1 appears in the old photos to be different than today's version (much more severe). Ben Crenshaw agrees with me, but Jeff Markow the superintendent is not sure. Jeff has an excellent eye and great knowledge of the course (see his in-house bunker work), so I am trusting his instincts on this for now until we can get out there with the old photos.Every green has lost some pin placements that would be very interesting, particularly because they would be on areas with more slope. I am convinced that MacKenzie considered a top pin placement (third tier) on 9 where #10 tee is. See the photo of nine green in the Golden Age and notice where the gentleman is standing. This would make it a remarkably severe green.And finally, aerification. Riviera's old black and whites show greens with much more undulation than we have today. The greens at Riviera were aerified sometimes as often as every two weeks for stretches during the late 80s, and there is a debate about the significance of aerification in softening contours. That said, even if Cypress' had more "movement," I think it was far less than what Maxwell and MacKenzie did at Crystal Downs or even Michigan. But Valley Club's greens are extrememly subtle, but plenty interesting considering their size.Geoff

[Ran Morrissett]

Geoff,Are you aware of any momentum to restoring the greens at Cypress (even one a year) should they get their hands on incontrovertible facts (ie photos, etc.)? Even a show piece hole like the 15th, when the Morrissett Gang of Four played it, we had three birdies and a par - the green for a hole that length is just not as interesting as I would have hoped.And the Mona Lisa could have been blah blah... I know. Still, when MacKenzie didn't receive any criticism when it opened, I wonder if he thought he may have gone too soft, even with those features you mention?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Ran,Cypress Point has done in-house restoration work on 16 and 17 (greenside bunkers) in an attempt to work toward a master plan. I sense that no green reconstruction work will take place, except for possibly the fifteenth in some way (I sense it is a priority to get that old right middle pin back in some manner). There is more cliff stabilization needed on the western face, and that may be the time they try to do some work on the green. And obviously, the bunkers there are in serious need of restoration. Geoff

[John Sessions]

A good Scot would feel cheaped if no one complained on opening day.

[AndrewB]

What do folks think of the greens at Cypress Point?  Is "relatively tame" accurate and, if so, is that a bad thing?

I believe the work on 15 that Geoff hinted at above has happened.  Have there been any other changes?

[Tom Huckaby]

Back in 1999, Ran was just trying to stir things up among the 10 participants.

 

Seriously, which greens on CPC are tame?

1 - no, not even close
2 - no, lots of contour
3 - ditto
4 - ditto
5 - three tiers
6 - could be called tame
7 - huge contour
8 - wacky
9 - two tiers
10 - somewhat tame
11 - subtle contours, no way tame
12 - somewhat tame
13 - no way, crazy contours
14 - somewhat tame
15 - good god, he's insane, contour through the tongue in front, more subtle in back, loads of interest
16 - tame, necessarily so
17  - somewhat tame
18 - huge contour

So that's a count of 6 out of 18 that might be called tame... and on at least one of them, it's for the best.

I think the greens there are pretty perfect myself.

TH

[PThomas]

i thought they were quite challenging too Huck!

[Brad Tufts]

To the question of which course sports more severe greens, Pebble or Cypress, it would be a close call.  I would think that CP has some additonal interior contour, whereas most of the PB greens cant in one direction, but a green-by-green study proves otherwise.  For this discussion, I would define a "severe contoured green" as one with multiple tiers, heavy slopes, fall-offs on the edges, a tough place to have a downhill/sidehill putt...etc...

The rundown:

More subtle:

CP: 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 16 (as subtle a green that hole can have), 17
PB: 2, 4, 6, 7, 9?, 13, 15, 18

More severe/fun!?:

CP: 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10?, 13!, 14, 15, 18
PB: 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14!, 16, 17?

There are a few I don't remember in close detail...

[Tom Huckaby]

I suppose some might be called tame compared to Crystal Downs (from what I hear)... but if they are tame relative to the rest of the world of golf, then I need to quit the game.

Because thinking about this further, I don't think one can call either 6 or 10 tame either... and 12 and 14 and 17 also have their challenges.... truly the only tame green on the course is 16, and given the shot required to reach that green, it would be complete overkill to make it wacky.  As it stands, there's enough contour to make one thing anyway.....

TH

[Padraig Dooley]

Was even more amazed with the contours in them, when I went back earlier in the year.

Of the many things that stood out were the speed from back to front on the 4th green and how slow the seemingly downhill putt from back to front on the 6th green was.

[Brad Tufts]

To respond to Huck's CP analysis:

PB:

1:  left to right, back to front, but all in one direction
2:  Generally flat, ironically plays better as a long par 4 green
3:  Small, right to left, with falloffs at front and esp. rear
4:  Flat, back to front
5:  Good contouring, an effort to get shots to roll front to back and left to right
6:  Large and flat
7:  Small and flat
8:  Small and heavily contoured back to front, left to right
9:  Back to front, left to right, not as heavy as #8 and #10
10:  Hard left to right
11:  Hard back to front, bunkers make for wild putts
12:  Heavy back to front, lots of slope
13:  Subtle right to left slope, putts can break uphill!
14:  Wow, wacky green, heaviest slope on the course on the right half
15:  Flattish, slight right to left
16:  Pretty heavy right to left slope, and slightly toward the rear
17:  Wacky green shape, there isn't alot of contour, save for right middle
18:  Pretty flat, for the same reasons as #16 at CP

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I do not consider the greens at Cypress tame by any means. I think one has to think hard to find the tame ones which to me are 2, 3, 14 and 17. I am not sure I would call those tame given the setting. I find no comparison between Pebble and Cypress on this discussion. Pebble is a much harder course but Cypress has the far more interesting greens. There is a lot more going on at Cypress green wise as well.

[David Stamm]

The rundown:

More subtle:

 PB:  13
 

Wow Brad! While not wildly contoured, I thought 13 was very severe from back to front. There are few greens I've played where being above the pin was more punished than this one. Maybe I'm overstating this.....

[Tom Huckaby]

Tiger:

Well said... only I surely can't even call 2 or 3 tame!  Each has a lot of contour - 2 front to back, 3 side to side - I've sure as hell had very difficult putts on each.  14 and 17 are more subtle but I've witnessed a lot of missed putts there as well (mostly my own).  Those are closer to tame, though.  Or maybe it's just that I suck.

 

In any case, calling CPC's greens tame is certainly just an exercise in pot-stirring, unless one really is saying they are tame compared to Crystal Downs.  It's hard to ferret out Ran's motives from 8 years ago.

TH

[Rich Goodale]

This might have something to do with green speed rather than contour.  The two times I played Cypress the greens were not at all fast, probably set up for member and mmeber's guest play.  Most of the times I've played Pebble the greens were much faster than that, maybe to prove to the visitors that it is a "championship" course.  I think if you set up Cypress for a tournament, the greens would not be seen to be at all tame, but I still think that the good players would score low if they were on their game.

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:

In my position as one of America's Guests, I've now been fortunate to play CPC quite a few times, and I've seen the greens at slow, medium, fast speeds.  I really can't call many of them "tame" at any speed.  Ramp them up to very fast and things get really difficult.

As for how really good players would score on the course, I'd agree it can be had even at top speeds.  But of course one could also give them sadistic pin positions that would keep them from going too low.  The main thing is that for today's bombers a par five doesn't exist on that course, so it's really a par 67....

For us normal guys though it sure holds plenty of challenge.

My experience at Pebble mirrors yours, btw...

TH

[David Stamm]

Hucks, how would you compare the severity of Pasa vs CPC?

[Craig Van Egmond]

I do think relative to Crystal Down's that Cypress Point's greens are tamer, but certainly not tame.

Maxwell put some serious movement in the greens at Crystal and with the green speeds I saw, it was quite a challenge.

[Tom Huckaby]

Hucks, how would you compare the severity of Pasa vs CPC?

David:

Given you've just cited the course with the wildest, most severe set of greens I have ever seen - such that they get absurd at speeds over 8-9, well... CPC's greens can be called TAME in general compared to Pasatiempo.

TH

[David Stamm]

Hucks, how would you compare the severity of Pasa vs CPC?

David:

Given you've just cited the course with the wildest, most severe set of greens I have ever seen - such that they get absurd at speeds over 8-9, well... CPC's greens can be called TAME in general compared to Pasatiempo.

TH

Honestly, I wasn't trying to bait you. I've never played CPC. I was just curious on your take, that's all. BTW, I would agree, up to this point in my limited education, Pasa's greens are the most challenging I've seen.

[Tom Huckaby]

David:

I took it no other way!  You just did happen to mention one of very few courses compared to which CPC's greens might be considered tame.  I gather Crystal Downs is another.

Pasa's greens at 8 stimp are as fun as golf can get... Pasa's greens at 10 or above make the game completely stupid.

Thankfully the last few times I've been there the greens seemed to be around 8.

They still kicked my ass, but the kicking was very fun!

TH

[David Stamm]

Pasa's greens at 8 stimp are as fun as golf can get... Pasa's greens at 10 or above make the game completely stupid.

 

I completely concur. Anything around 10 in general on that course is just flat outrageous. At the speeds you mention, 8, the greens are alot of fun! But man, are they challenging!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()