Steve Lapper,

I'd agree that # 17 at Sand Hills is terrific,

But, from the abandoned top tee, it wasn't a short hole.

From that tee it impressed me as one of the hardest par 3's you could ever play.

Wayne,

I always considered short par 3's to be under 140.

What's unfortunate is that with lengthening, some of the great short to medium par 3's have been lost.

# 5 at Seminole was always a favorite at its earlier lengths.

It's also unfortunate that while playing from the back tees, that you can't move up to the old or forward tees on some of the great par 3's in golf, such as the 17th at Seminole.

The 2nd at GCGC is a wonderful, short par 3 that usually plays at around 130-137 to a blind/semi-blind putting surface surrounded by bunkers, with a prevailing wind in your face.

I also like # 18 from the forward tee when the hole is located behind the deep, hidden, right side bunkers.

From the forward tee, # 11 at The Creek is also special, especially when the wind is up.

The 8th at Troon isn't bad either.

And a Partridge in a Pear Tree. . . . . . and a Hand Job in an MG.

And Wayne,

I am impressed you hit 9-iron (older lofts) to #11 at Shinnecock . . . . . that definitely qualifes you to run the Green Committee at your club. I guess the Biarritz at The Creek would be a punch 7-iron then, eh?

You meet my standard for a lot of things, too . . . .

Gawd has this place changed.

13? It's a classic Ross short par three with a horseshoe tier.  Front pins are the easiest  because they lie in a swale that allows everything to feed to the hole.

There's a similar hole to this at Oak Hill.  Number four on the West is the most severe green on the course, has a variety of great pins (especially with some newly recovered green area), and is my personal favorite short par three.  I'll have to post some pictures of the West Course on here when I get a chance, there are plenty of cool holes with neat greens to defend them.

"Wayne,
If memory serves me,  the 11th @ CC Pepper Pike is 185 yards  over a valley  to a distant green  benched into  a hill.  I hope you aint  hitting an 8 iron  on that "short" hole !!"

Mark,

They put in a new tee, so you're probably right that it does play that length today.  The original design was 144 yards and that tee still exists.  Thanks.

Gib,

So, you are reducing my thoughts to "a load of crock" and "nonsense."

Yes.  What other conclusion is there?

Maybe, because we have never had the pleasure  of meeting in person, I need to insert  this kind of cutsey puke to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of aesthetes of your highly developed and easily offended sensibilities.

I would prefer it if you didn't patronize me.

If I had to guess - and I may be wrong, unlike those who pride themselves as infallable - you are still getting pissy about my suggestion that Tiger Woods might save America in the same way Winston Churchill led England.

Still getting pissy?  I don't remember such a statement. Probably because it is so stupid.  But why would you bring up something so disconnected to this conversation?  You make a habit of it.

Otherwise, your comments are snide, inflammatory and if you want to engage in a contest of who can "do the dozens," I don't like your chances.

I had no idea what the phrase "who can do the dozens" means.  It must be a left coast idiom.  I looked it up as you suggested, and frankly you bore me with that rather lame challenge.

"So look Wayne, I write from the heart. You will notice my phrase at the bottom of my posts has been changed after years and years, as well as the little blurb below my name. The world is cursed with enough smarmy, disingenous, sycophants."

Sorry, I do not bother to look at blurbs.  But your writing comes across as from a MacKenzie sycophant.  However, it isn't smarmy or disingenuous.

"It is okay if you have a different opinion Wayne, it just seems like you have gotten too comfortable on your pulpit - emboldened enough to be rude, snide and insulting to those of us who might just have as much knowledge as you.  

Gib, I responded to your comments and insults.  First you confused minimalism for naturalism.  Then you said, "Some people are incapable of appreciating embellishments to function that elevate the simply utilitarian to high artistic achievement.

"If given the choice, are we to select one of those horrible Russian LADA's to drive, or something with flair and panache'?"

Notice your propensity to use irrelevant comments?

"Anybody can design something plain and humorless. Cypress Point sits adjacent to God's best work, to construct something less than beautiful there would be an insult to the deity."

Do you think I prefer something plain and humorless?  If so, you have no idea about me.  Why else would you make a statement such as this?  

"Again, oh savant of all things architecture, if you think me an ass, just ignore my posts - otherwise man-up and tell me who you would have done on #15 at CPC bettter than Mackenzie."

Don't be such a jerk.  If you weren't so obsessed with me manning up (whatever that means), you would have read my comments and understand that the mounding and bunkers BESIDE and BEHIND the green are awful.  The front bunkers look terrific.  The hole may play well and the site inspiring but the bunkers and mounds look terrible as presented today.  This is my opinion.  And these features are what I would remove.  Do you have any idea what that site looked like before MacKenzie?  If not, take a look in "Golf Architecture" by Dr. A. MacKenzie.  The original site looked a lot better.

"Maybe an oval pad, no bunkers and binoculars to look at the Seals laying on the rocks . . . . ."

A ridiculous comment, which at this point comes as no surprise.

P.S. I do not mind artificial. Don't use Raynor against me, I am the wrong guy to pick on there. My point is that every situation is a stand-alone challenge. And anybody who talks smack about Jim Engh needs to be smacked.

Are you going to smack me, Gib?

You remind me of one of those "society church" broads in their sensible shoes and pixie cut hairdo's, who pretend they have a direct line to God because nobody knows their husband is screwing the Vickar's secretary. . . . . .

I remind you of a broad in sensible shoes and a pixie cut hairdo with a cheating husband?  You may want to keep that to yourself.

"And a Partridge in a Pear Tree. . . . . . and a Hand Job in an MG."

You clearly find it easy to be so insulting at a distance.  Do you drive around in an MG by yourself?

"And Wayne,

I am impressed you hit 9-iron (older lofts) to #11 at Shinnecock . . . . . that definitely qualifes you to run the Green Committee at your club. I guess the Biarritz at The Creek would be a punch 7-iron then, eh?"

More stupid comments.  You may think hitting a 9-iron to 11 at SHGC qualifies me to run a Green Committee.  I don't nor did I ever maintain that it did.  I am not now, nor have I ever been on a green committee.  You are systematically annoying with your irrelevant diversionary comments from left field.  Given your weak arguments, I can see why you may not wish to stay on topic.  Continue guessing what my club selection would be like at The Creek.  However, given that the green is 85 yards long, wouldn't it depend upon the pin position and wind direction?  From the back of the rear tee to the front of the green (which was once fairway), it is only 158 yards.

my list would include:

11 at shinnecock
8 and 14 at maidstone
9 at myopia - perhaps my favorite of the bunch
12 at shoreacres for the setting
10 at chicago golf club -great setting and all world green complex
12 at forsgate (banks) great green complex
15 at cypress point
13 at merion
7 at pebble for the setting

Let's see...

By my count, McCall Field Golf Club has...

perhaps the best collection of par threes in golf, although with the inherent advantage of having six of them in a par sixty-six configuration.

2...fantastic,
4-  would be a highlight hole on virtually any course...
6 cute as a button benched into the hill, but not nearly as great a short par three as...

9...oh...just better than 13 at Merion...
11...eh..just impossible to hit in any cross wind and brilliantly bunkered...
and then finally...15
100 yards of squeezed specialness where the term "sucker pin" could apply virtually anywhere.

On the 15th at Cypress, how do the bunkers long, left and right of the green affect the difficulty of holes placed on the green in their proximity?

Does the combination of a higher trajectory short shot, the wind, and the bunker's proximity make those hole locations more difficult?

Kyle

The hole is just so simple, and so confusing.  With the wind, the ocean, and all that sand.  I expect there is a difference in 'camouflage' and naturalism, and certainly minimalism.  

However, camouflage as an intent to confuse someone occurs so often with MacKenzie's bunkers.  Whether it be the back bunkers of Augusta #13, Pasatiempo #3, Valley Club #14, the interaction of adjacent back bunkers at #15 and #18 at Valley Club, Cypress Point #13, #15, #16 and #17 - they all confuse the golfer's eye.  They are not necessarily bunkers which will get a lot of play but, they effect the judgment of the player by deceiving him, camouflaging the real goal.

GCA has talked about narrow fairways and the defined 'hit it here, then hit it here' game as compared to the wide fairways where the player has to pick his own line.  Well, these MacKenzie holes are damned hard to judge distance on, as the eye has no simple focal point to concentrate on.  The golfer does not get any simple, regular instruction to 'hit it here'

My example of this effect - at Cypress Point #15, my caddie and I watched my ball fly towards the green and perhaps on to the putting surface.  Or, perhaps it fell short into the front bunker, just over the rocks.  Eventually, we found it, 15 yards over the green, some 30 or 40 yards past where we thought it was - on a short par 3!  This is a very rare phenomenon for me (I am rarely long).  My caddie (a local) and I (a newbie of the first order) were both totally deceived.

MacKenzie does the flashed, back bunkering so often, he obviously did it for a reason.  Some have argued it is for visual beauty, but I think it has a lot to do with deception of the golfer's eye, and depth/distance deception in particular.  These bunkers also seems to balance what are often hazards (streams, bunkers, false fronts) at the front of these greens, making the depth perception of the real challenge (the fronting hazard) more difficult

James B

It's times like this when this site loses it for me.
That is, when we get so into the esoteric
discussion of architecture seemingly in a
vaccuum that we lose sight of what the game
is all about, and what its venues provide:  joy in
playing the greatest game there is.

If someone can stand on the tee at 15 Cypress
and find anything less than stunning beauty...
and if he hit that shot with anything less than
the joy that beauty and the challenge of the
shot provides... than he is WAY too into architecture.

My friends, I've been lucky to play that hole
several times.  I just played it a few days ago.
(That was for shivas).

It's a stunningly beautiful golf hole, and a pretty
darn tough shot for 135 yards.  To me it
represents the best this game has to offer.

But if you want to critique over the top
bunkers and mounds, I guess have at it.  
There is room in the tent for one and all.

I just think you are really missing the forest for the trees....

TH

Well said. I am looking at a picture of this hole in black and white right now with the original bunkering (although it is not much different). But how you could even criticize something so beautiful is kind of silly.  And to defend it, from all the pictures i have seen the hole looks a lot more natural at different angles. I just read how MacKenzie thought the best way to imitate nature, as far as dunes like mounding, was to have the hollows between the mounds wider and longer than the size of the mounds. I can't say that I see anything obviously unnatural with the mounding around the green.

James,

I think the Bohr War story of camouflage is a misapplied myth  as regards the bunkering.  These bunkers frame greens and clearly delineate the green's margins.  I cannot see how they induce doubt.  You may not have known where your ball was on the hole, but how is that an artifact of the back bunkers?  There might be some widening of the field of vision by extraneous bunkers and I've seen that elsewhere by other architects.  But these are not of that type.  The bunkers and mounds, especially behind greens must have served some purpose, as you point out there at Valley Club, Pasa, Augusta and Cypress.  I can't figure out why.  I don't like them, especially as they are now presented with clean edges making them look entirely unnatural and not at all tied into the surrounds.

Others on here have praised architects for restraint yet often they praise MacKenzie (as one of the chosen few) and find he can do no wrong.  Hammering an odd design choice into the shape that will neatly fit into the camouflage dynamic.  He was a great architect, among the very top 2 or 3.  But he baffles me with some of his tendencies.  I don't mind challenging there purpose and look and I don't have to like them.  It would be boring if we all agreed to the same narrow point of view.  I think it is important that we are allowed to present opposing views.      

Wayne,

I think I have identified the problem here. Maybe a little clarification might help.

First off, I do not strive for a coldly professorial tone to my posts. There are enough pedantic academics running around the world without adding another one.

This site is supposed to be fun. Those who know me - or are familiar with my discursive ramblings - read with an understanding that form is just as important as function in my prose.

You seem to be focused on proving yourself "right," for some odd reason and want to pick apart my posts with tweezers like some kind of prosecuting attorney.

I disagree with you on many points, but to take my bemused hyperbole at face value is like reading Hunter Thompson as a history textbook.

Again, if you are going to insist on bone-dry analysis and ruthlessly attack me for trying to inject a little levity (read: LADA cars) into the proceedings, then don't respond to my posts.

I cannot figure out how you can take something intended as much for entertainment as the exchange of information and get your panties in a wad.

You have obviously had a "humorectomy," which makes your posts a little tedious to read.

I am happy to debate the fine points of architecture, but wisdom and taste will not die with you . . . . . .

Now, either lighten up, or ignore my posts. The first rule of writing is to make it entertaining.  

I haven't played it (yet) , but how about the restored 'Little Tillie' hole at SFGC?  The last time I was there was just before the restoration project started and our caddie showed us the tee location-it looked like an awesome hole.

And here's another one that our beloved Emperor will appreciate-the 5th at Rec Park in Long Beach-it has two greens and two tee in opposite directions (one uphill, one downhill) and both of them are both short, outstanding golf holes.

Among courses I've played, the short holes I liked best were:

Royal County Down 7th


Portmarnock 12th (from the side)


French Lick 16th


My first picture posting attempt.