Seminole & Cypress Point: Overrated?

« **Reply #175 on:** March 26, 2007, 05:24:40 AM »

Arbs,
Your forgetting one major point here--your talking about a Ford when every good autophile knows that it takes Chevrolet or Chrysler fire power to compete.......

I read this entire post early today--and while I can't comment on Seminole, the thoughts on Cypress Point--the perfect example of how much people look at courses compared to there own game--even the pros.... (more so)

I side with Pat. He nails it again.

« **Reply #176 on:** March 26, 2007, 08:30:09 AM »

Patrick:

I just want to hear precisely why the tour pro thinks Seminole and CPC are overrated. I'd like to hear him go through it hole by hole and explain what he means. In that process some on here may simply counter that he doesn't know what he's talking about but I view that kind of response as not particularly worthwhile---sort of a knee-jerk response, as it were.

Frankly, I've always thought that the automatic response from some that tour pros "don't get" architecture is pretty hilarious. One should consider Tom Doak's apparent change of opinion on that score. It doesn't take a genius to realize if tour pros really didn't get architecture at all it would be pretty unlikely they would be capable of being tour pros.

« **Reply #177 on:** March 26, 2007, 10:00:26 AM »

Byran Izatt,

Here's what Michael said about his friend.

It's a ver.batim quote.

Quote from: Michael Whitaker on March 22, 2007, 08:19:56 PM

A good friend of mind is a member of the PGA tour. He is considered one of the up and coming young players and has done quite well for himself, already winning over 2.5MM dollars since joining the tour.

He is very bright and quite fun to be around. We have had many conversations about design, architects, tour courses, etc and although he has never visited this site, I think he would enjoy the banter and fit right in. He tends to enjoy straight forward courses that require shot making skills... for example, his favorite course in SC is Harbour Town.

Our conversation yesterday took an interesting turn... we were discussing his playing a recent outing at Seminole. He has played there several times and I asked him what he thought of the course. [size=4x]I was surprised when he said it was one of the most overrated courses he has played.[/size] He loves and respects the history, mystique and ambiance of the course and club, [size=4x]but he feels the course is just not a good enough test to be considered one of the top ranked in the world. [/size]He feels it gets too many "experience" points from the raters and that the course alone does not justify the lofty ranking it receives. "Without a very stiff wind the course is a par 65 or 66," he said. "But, they have one of the greatest old clubhouses and locker rooms in US golf."

I asked him if there were any other courses he felt were overrated. [size=4x]He said, to my amazement, that the MOST overrated course he had ever played was Cypress Point. "It is six of the greatest holes you will ever play, six average holes, and six of the worst holes you will find on a supposedly 'world class' course. 17 and 18 are two of the worst holes I have ever played on a good course."[/size]

Not having played either Seminole or Cypress Point I could only listen and express my surprise at his thoughts. I asked him to read Ran's reviews of the two courses on this site so we could have some common frame of reference when we next pick up the conversation.

What's your take? Any suggested questions or thoughts for our next conversaton?

« **Reply #178 on:** March 26, 2007, 10:05:03 AM »

Quote from: Bryan Izatt on March 26, 2007, 03:24:15 AM

Patrick,

You brilliantly dodged the questions. Who was it who called you Houdini?

No, I didn't, I answered them all, you just didn't like or agree with the answers.

Who would have guessed that you were referring to your own ranking system?

I wasn't.

You asked me a seperate question, limiting my choice to three options, since none of those options was a suitable choice, I added a fourth option, which is my choice.

Or that I could have missed it the many times you've posted it on here?

Byran, I've made my self clear throughout this thread.
But, you asked a seperate question referencing a three tiered multiple choice question. But, you forgot to include a fourth multiple choice answer: D None of the above.

Do you really believe "The evaluative process is precise in that each rater assigns a numeric value to his assessment, so, for each rater, their evaluative rating is precise." ?

It's precise to that rater, just like Michael and others are alleging that Michael's friend's rating is precise to him.

That a rater thinking to themselves that a category deserves a 9 out of 10 for a certain course is a "precise" ranking?

Again, it is to the individual rater.
Would you prefer 1 in 20 ? 1 in 100 ?
It doesn't really matter, the statistical compilation and average score will remain a precise number.

I guess in your mind it's more precise than rating it A or B or C or F.

See my above answer

Does your ranking system allow category ratings to one decimal place? To two decimal places? Is the summation of your rating accurate to only one decimal place?

MY rating system doesn't use numerical indicators.
But, this thread ISN'T about MY rating system.
It's about the long established rating system of the magazines

Ah well, to each his own rating system. We certainly know that virtually no one on here thinks the rating systems are bullet proof, or anywhere near.

That was never the issue

Back to the topic, you persist in stating the premise that "It's not about Michael's friend's broad based opinions or his feature specific opinions.

That's a joke.
He didn't have broad based opinions.
He had one opinion. And that opinion was that neither Seminole or CPC provided a difficult test to the PGA Tour Pro.

It's about Michael's friend's assessment of Seminole's and CPC's ratings/rankings in the erroneous context of how those courses fail to present a difficult test for the PGA Tour Pro."

Initially Michael said that his friend felt: "Bottom line... "greatness" is not just about length or difficulty of shot values for my friend. He thinks there are plenty of old "short" courses that are great."

NO !
That's not what he said initially.
I've re-posted his initial post in an attempt to refresh your memory.

So it seems his feeling that they are over-rated is not solely based on the difficulty of the test for a PGA Tour Pro.

No, you're incorrect.
Reread Michael's initial post.

Why do you keep insisting he does?

Because I possess decent reading comprehension skills and you don't.

Further he described the shortcomings of CPC as related to 4 weak holes.

He labeled 6, not 4, holes as weak and claimed that 17 and 18 were amongst the worst.

I don't recall he said they were weak solely because they didn't challenge him as a Pro.

What do you recall ?

« **Reply #179 on:** March 26, 2007, 10:05:11 AM »

I've only played Cypress once and I nearly wet myself several times during the round, so I wouldn't say it's overrated, but anybody who has played the course would have to agree with the sentiment expressed by this guy's friend about #s 17 and 18. The golf course should end at 16, because these two holes are clearly not worthy. 18 in particular is an abomination.

In fact, I would nominate it as the worst finishing hole on an otherwise out-of-the-world golf course. Any competition?

« **Reply #180 on:** March 26, 2007, 10:16:37 AM »

Patrick:

If you have such good reading comprehension maybe you should check out post #18, for starters. And in case it never occured to you perhaps you should consider that most of these threads on here are ongoing discussions so there really isn't any particular reason for you to always fixate on the initial post. The discussion's give and take is capbable of developing the subject beyond the initial post you know? Or maybe you never knew that.

« **Reply #181 on:** March 26, 2007, 10:17:05 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on March 26, 2007, 08:30:09 AM

Patrick:

I just want to hear precisely why the tour pro thinks Seminole and CPC are overrated.

TEPaul,

He told you already.

Didn't you read his comments on CPC ?

Didn't you read the part about Seminole not providing a difficult test ?

I'd like to hear him go through it hole by hole and explain what he means. In that process some on here may simply counter that he doesn't know what he's talking about but I view that kind of response as not particularly worthwhile---sort of a knee-jerk response, as it were.

Noone is disagreeing with him with respect to the inability to provide a difficult test for the PGA Tour Pro issue.

The issue is that the ratings/rankings aren't based on the sole criteria that the golf course presents a difficult test for the PGA Tour Pro.

Frankly, I've always thought that the automatic response from some that tour pros "don't get" architecture is pretty hilarious. One should consider Tom Doak's apparent change of opinion on that score. It doesn't take a genius to realize if tour pros really didn't get architecture at all it would be pretty unlikely they would be capable of being tour pros.

Would you name some tour pros other than Ben Crenshaw who have produced outstanding golf courses on their own ?

Then, would you name some tour pros who have produced mediocre to poor golf courses on their own or in conjunction with someone.

Then, would you relate the two categories as a ratio

Thanks

« **Reply #182 on:** March 26, 2007, 10:21:35 AM »

"Didn't you read the part about Seminole not providing a difficult test?"

Yes, I did and that's why I would like to hear him explain his opinions hole by hole about why he feels that way. I can't imagine anything more informative regarding his opinion that Seminole does not provide a difficult test than that.

Can you?

I would like to see him do that on both courses because he mentioned Seminole and CPC.

« **Reply #183 on:** March 26, 2007, 10:35:09 AM »

Terry Lavin,

You should know that AM's original plan called for a tee on # 18 that was further back on a rock island. I think that configuration would have enhanced the value of the hole.

I would doubt that the CCC would allow that tee today, but, you never know.

I also don't know if CPC has any interest in constructing that tee and the method for getting to and from that tee.

« **Reply #184 on:** March 26, 2007, 10:36:42 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on March 26, 2007, 10:21:35 AM

"Didn't you read the part about Seminole not providing a difficult test?"

Yes, I did and that's why I would like to hear him explain his opinions hole by hole about why he feels that way. I can't imagine anything more informative regarding his opinion that Seminole does not provide a difficult test than that.

Can you?

I would like to see him do that on both courses because he mentioned Seminole and CPC.

Tom Meeks already answered this for you, except he was referencing Merion, but, it applies to SGC and CPC as well.

« **Reply #185 on:** March 26, 2007, 10:47:38 AM »

Patrick:

I'm not talking about Tom Meeks or his opinion of Seminole or CPC, and either is Michael Whitaker and his friend the Tour pro talking about Tom Meeks' opinion of Seminole and CPC.

« **Reply #186 on:** March 26, 2007, 10:57:38 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 26, 2007, 10:35:09 AM

Terry Lavin,

You should know that AM's original plan called for a tee on # 18 that was further back on a rock island. I think that configuration would have enhanced the value of the hole.

I would doubt that the CCC would allow that tee today, but, you never know.

I also don't know if CPC has any interest in constructing that tee and the method for getting to and from that tee.

Pat,

That would surely help. As it is, the hole calls for a four-iron through the cypress goalposts, a ninety degree turn to the right and a wedge to an elevated green. Pretty Mickey Mouse stuff, especially for such an amazing place.

« **Reply #187 on:** March 26, 2007, 01:00:39 PM »

OK... here is the email I sent my friend and the response I got. Take it for what it's worth as this is all I will be able to get on this subject. He is not as fascinated with this Q&A as we are.

Feel free to comment on his opinions but, PLEASE, do not get petty. He only did this as a favor to me. Thanks.

EMAIL: Many of the conversation participants are of the opinion that a Tour pro is too focused on course length and that the fact that a hole might be too short for you does not mean it is a bad hole. For example, Tom Doak, said the following about Cypress Point:

"If it's the short par-4's your friend doesn't like, it's not holes 5 & 6 (those are short par-5's), but instead the 8th and 9th, which some people think are among the best holes on the planet.

I can understand a Tour pro not liking the 8th at Cypress Point. In theory, they are long enough to drive the green there, but the hole is blind from the tee and there's no way they could hold the green anyway, so the only real option for them is probably a 5-iron tee shot and a wedge. It's a much better hole for the members, and it is a crucial hole in the routing in order to get to #9, but it is probably overrated in itself because of the setting.

The ninth is just one of the best holes in the world. It's very short -- your friend could probably get home with a 3-wood -- but it's a frightening risk to attempt it because there are places around the green from which he might make six. Unlike the eighth, it's all in front of you, it's just about how much nerve you have. You can always play it with an iron and a wedge, and still the Tour players won't make 3 with any regularity."

Another person wondered the following: "Since he considered 17 and 18 at CPC as weak, how does he view # 17 at Wannamoissett ? Or, # 18 at Newport ?"

ANSWER: For starters, 17 at Wannamoisett is the ONLY par five on a Par 69 course that can't be more than 6800 yards, and even Par has won something like 95% of the Northeast Amateurs, one of the top events in the country. 18 at Newport is a fine hole. Wind is usually a factor, as well as a quick back to front green. As far as Cypress, all I'll say since I don't remember every hole (no shock) is that a course should impress you visually as much as anything and a large part of the course does. NO GREAT COURSE ends in such mediocre fashion. It's a cool place with some incredible views, some of the best holes I have ever seen, and an incomparable membership. But, it IS NOT the best golf course in the country, or the Peninsula for that matter. Spyglass has the same views and an awesome mix of holes, and is in MUCH better condition now than Cypress. Like I said, Seminole impressed me much more this last time but both courses are much more aura than impressive. Ratings people are scared to not give them what historians feel is their due. I fully understand Tom's take on a Tour player's mentality but I love golf holes that look good and are at least moderately challenging. Seminole has to get their greens running 14 and a 25mph wind to be challenging, and it is just that. Cypress needs a little wind and their greens to be perfect to play like it should. I like both places and courses very much, but don't think they belong in the category they are in. Winged Foot, Oakmont, Pine Valley, Shinnecock....these two don't compare to these.

« **Reply #188 on:** March 26, 2007, 01:10:40 PM »

Semionle greens running at 14? I thought there was only one course in the world who had the balls to pull that off. And that one course has to slow down the greens when the big boys come out to play.

« **Reply #189 on:** March 26, 2007, 01:42:23 PM »

MW,

Thanks for going to this effort.

I think your buddie gave a very reasonable response there. I can't comment on the Monterey course comparisons, however I can say that Pine Valley and Shinnecock are also tremendously different animals on benign days as compared to days when the 'flag is up'.

There is an awful lot of emotion about the ranking process on here, as there is with anything that hits so close to home. I would say the fact that he (through you) took the ratings on directly is the cause for the negativity on this thread.

Seminole has 9 or 10 of what I would call world class holes. It also has one or two what I would call mediocre holes. The other 6 or 7 are very good and solid.

I also think this course represents one of the widest potential scoring spectrums in golf. That may be what he sees when he says the course depends on 14 feet greens and 25 MPH winds. In those conditions, par is a good score, even for him, while in a light breeze with toned down greens, it does become a birdie fest, which ain't always bad.

I'm not into trying to pin a course down to its deserved ranking, but I can say that Seminole is a course on which I'd love to play...probably more so than Winged Foot, which I love.

« **Reply #190 on:** March 26, 2007, 01:47:06 PM »

These guys really are different than you and me. I played Pebble, Spyglass and Pebble again a couple of years ago, and fell utterly in love with Pebble Beach. Spyglass left me unmoved.

« **Reply #191 on:** March 26, 2007, 03:49:02 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 26, 2007, 10:05:03 AM

Quote from: Bryan Izatt on March 26, 2007, 03:24:15 AM

Back to the topic, you persist in stating the premise that "It's not about Michael's friend's broad based opinions or his feature specific opinions.

That's a joke.
He didn't have broad based opinions.
He had one opinion. And that opinion was that neither Seminole or CPC provided a difficult test to the PGA Tour Pro.

This is your quote. Are you saying that what you say is a joke?

It's about Michael's friend's assessment of Seminole's and CPC's ratings/rankings in the erroneous context of how those courses fail to present a difficult test for the PGA Tour Pro."

Initially Michael said that his friend felt: "Bottom line... "greatness" is not just about length or difficulty of shot values for my friend. He thinks there are plenty of old "short" courses that are great."

NO !
That's not what he said initially.
I've re-posted his initial post in an attempt to refresh your memory.

Thanks for the refresher, although I had reread the initial post. Strike the word "initially". You're right it was in a later post that he posted the quote above.

So it seems his feeling that they are over-rated is not solely based on the difficulty of the test for a PGA Tour Pro.

No, you're incorrect.
Reread Michael's initial post.

I had and have. Sadly you're being semantic and tunnel-visioned to try to win your point

Why do you keep insisting he does?

Because I possess decent reading comprehension skills and you don't.

It seems your reading comprehension skills are limited to only his intial post. Do you not comprehend post #15 with the quote? Or is it just a matter of convenience to ignore it to try to win a point?

Further he described the shortcomings of CPC as related to 4 weak holes.

He labeled 6, not 4, holes as weak and claimed that 17 and 18 were amongst the worst.

Again you're reading comprehension seems to have failed you after the first post. Terry has now called 18 at CPC Mickey Mouse. Is it time to eviscerate him now?

I don't recall he said they were weak solely because they didn't challenge him as a Pro.

What do you recall ?

Apparently more than you do after post #1.

Seems likely that Michael's buddy will think twice about expressing an opinion on here, directly or indirectly, in the future. And over a topic as precisely subjective as rating courses.

« **Reply #192 on:** March 26, 2007, 07:47:24 PM »

Some prefer blondes, some brunettes, some redheads - some older women, some tall women - whatever - you get the idea. Who knows why? Its just the way it is.....

To each his own - and to Michael Whitaker's friend - he has his preferences. More power to him.

The constructive portion of this discussion was interesting and worthwhile, as I have played neither golf course, but it ended awhile back. No one will change anyone elses mind now, or their preferences (regarding Seminole, Cypress Point, or women).

« **Reply #193 on:** March 26, 2007, 08:31:31 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on March 26, 2007, 10:47:38 AM

Patrick:

I'm not talking about Tom Meeks or his opinion of Seminole or CPC, and either is Michael Whitaker and his friend the Tour pro talking about Tom Meeks' opinion of Seminole and CPC.

What you don't understand is that Michael's friend, the PGA Tour Pro and Tom Meeks are in harmony on the issue.

You could call their views similar, if not congruent.

« **Reply #194 on:** March 26, 2007, 08:39:04 PM »

Terry Lavin,

What's interesting is that Seminole's orginal 18th hole was far less interesting than the current hole, which was redesigned by Dick Wilson.

Wilson moved the tee and the green.

# 18 at CPC is a bit of a let down, for the reasons that you and others have stated. But, had the tee been moved back, I think the hole would have benefited.

There's been a change in the culture of golf that places a greater emphasis on the 18th hole.

When match play reigned supreme, the 18th hole didn't have anywhere near the significance it carries today under the medal play format and mentality.

Today, there's a need to finish big or strong or both.
That wasn't the case during the "Golden Age"

So, you can't look at the design of a golden age golf course purely in the context of today's culture.

There are a good number of golden age golf courses that don't have a robust finishing hole, but, if the great majority of the golf at that course is being played at Match play, where's the rub ?

« **Reply #195 on:** March 26, 2007, 08:54:00 PM »

Byran Izatt,

THE relevant post is Michael's original one.
That's where he clearly states his friend's opinion.
That's the one where he clearly asks for comments.

Subsequent posts that attempt to alter the flavor of Michael's original post are of no interest to me.

He said what he said, his quote is clear.

As to Terry Lavin's description of # 18 at CPC, I too find the hole a bit of a let down, but, when one views the course in the context of its intended play and all 18 holes, calling it the most over-rated course he's ever played, with SIX of the worst holes you'll ever find on a good course is a very defiinative analysis, one which the golfing universe seems to disagree with.

If you choose to endorse his opinion, that CPC has six of the worst holes he's ever seen on a good golf course, and six average holes, go ahead, make my day.

It's an opinion of a myopic golfer, one that sees a golf course throught the narrowest of perspectives, that of his game, to the exclusion of everything else.

Tom Doak essentially called him a fool for rendering that opinion, but, you and everyone else supporting Michael's friend's opinion seemed to have ignored or pretended that Tom Doak didn't make those comments.

Comments that are so outrageous, that they validate Tom Doak's summation and suggestion.

I have no doubt that I'd have a great time with Michael's friend, on and off the golf course, as long as we didn't talk about GCA

« **Reply #196 on:** March 26, 2007, 11:19:11 PM »

Michael Whittaker:

Thanks for posting your tour pro friend's "final" email response.

I think he's right on the money. But the guy is young, he's really good----it's a new day now with what's happening these days in his world---and guess what, it's probably not great for golf and it's probably worse for architecture.

I don't think Sam Snead or Ben Hogan would say about Seminole or CPC what he said about those courses but they didn't live or play in his day.

If one is going to compare those courses with what is happening today I guess one needs to ask how your tour pro friend would do against Snead or Hogan in their day on those courses or how they'd do on those courses if they played against him in his day.

Anything less probably isn't comparing apples to apples.

Like any golf course, ultimately it has to work well enough for the membership, but if a golf course is going to be seriously considered as one of the top courses in the land I can't see how it can avoid the opinon of golfer's like your friend, the tour pro----no matter which era it comes from.

« **Reply #197 on:** March 28, 2007, 06:30:41 PM »

In hindsight, I believe the only thing which made this thread really controversial was the declaration that Cypress Point had "six of the worst holes you will find on a supposedly 'world class' course." I think it was ultimately retracted, but making such a large statement about a famous course will always get you in hot water here.

Personally, I was more troubled by the placing of Congressional in the young man's ranking of classic courses, and I made some assumptions about his interests and character because of that inclusion, which I probably should not have done.

« **Reply #198 on:** December 29, 2009, 09:39:16 PM »

Since I've moved across the swamp from Seminole my infatuation has risen exponentially and has now caused me to read all the old threads on the course. Im bumping this thread in particular as I found it to be a phenomenal read on several levels. First, there is some top notch discussion of architecture. Second, there is great debate among some great members of this board.

« **Reply #199 on:** December 29, 2009, 10:24:14 PM »

(I have not played Seminole, and have hardly even seen any photos of the course, so I won't comment on that part of the discussion.)

Early on in the thread, Tom said: "For 98% Cypress Point would be one of the 5-10 best courses in he world." Count me in that 98%. It is one of my handful of favorite places anywhere and I am extremely grateful to have played it.

However, I can understand MW's friend's perspective that the course is overrated--if only because so many consider Cypress as the single best course in the world. If people call it anything less, it would mean "overrated" by definition.

As I tried to articulate in my essay on Pacing a couple of months ago, the back nine in particular of CPC leaves something to be desired. There is one extremely challenging hole (16) and a number of drives-and-wedges--which were probably drives-and-short-irons back in the pre-Titanium and pre-Pro V1 days. In fact, I found the holes on the front nine much more interesting as golf holes, despite their inland location. 6-7-8-9 is an absolutely amazing stretch. As an aside, personally I loved 17 but I can understand the Tour pro's feeling that it is unsatisfying in some way...the trees in the middle of the fairway certainly create some discomfort on the tee.

Oakmont held my interest from the first tee shot to the last putt, precisely because the range of hole types is so expansive, all the way through the round. I'd put Oakmont in the top 2-3 courses I have played whereas Cypress doesn't quite climb that high.

Correct me if I am wrong--and I am sure this group will

--but I think Mackenzie said something about a course being enjoyable for golfers of all skill levels...in my opinion this should include scratch or plus-handicaps AS WELL as the 36 HCP...even among Mackenzie's work in California, I do not think Cypress as a golf coursewould rate nearly as high as Pasatiempo on that criterion.

Clearly, however, it is one of the best, if not THE best golf experience in the world.

News:

Tommy_Naccarato

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

tlavin

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

tlavin

Michael Whitaker

Ryan Farrow

JESII

Rick Shefchik

Bryan Izatt

Steve_Lovett

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Tom_Doak

JC Jones

David Mihm