Who routed Cypress--Dr. Mac or Raynor?

[NAF]

-

[T_MacWood]

Noel
My guess is it is a MacKenzie routing. We know Raynor identified the 16th and MacKenzie wisely kept it, but that's about all we know.

When MacKenzie and Hunter were brought in by Morse to finish Monterey Pens (a Raynor design), they commented that they would have liked to have redesigned/rerouted that course, but it was too late...it was in the final stages.

[TEPaul]

If an architect follows another architect into a project and picks some of the same landforms for golf holes the previous architect did without knowing what the previous architect did should it be considered the previous architect routed the couse or some part of it? I, for one, sure don't think so.

At Cypress apparently Marion Hollins may've brought Raynor to the Cypress project. If he did a routing on it, it seems like no one today has seen it. So I guess that could beg the quesiton---did Raynor actually do a complete CPC routing?

However, if he did, and Marion Hollins and Sam Morse were aware of it, which of course it would be logical to assume they would be if they basically hired Raynor before he died suddenly, perhaps they were able to collaborate with MacKenzie and Hunter et al on the routing of CPC which may've included some of Raynor's routing ideas when MacKenzie (Hunter) did it with Morse and Hollins right there and part of the project.

[BCrosby]

Cashmore says:

"The essential routing for Cypress Point was undertaken by Seth Raynor in September and October 1924, nearly two years before Mackenzie was asked by Samuel Morse, (the real estate developer of much of the Peninsula), on Seth Raynor's untimely death, to finalize the golf course design on the point. Raynor's routing plan (dated X.'24) shows that Mackenzie changed little in his plan, although the famous Hole 16 was a risk-what-you-dare 320 yard par-4 playing from tees further back and hugging the inner coast, the drive more towards the 18th hole."

Note that he implies that he has the Rynor routing for Cypress in front of him - "Raynor's routing plan (dated X.'24) shows that Mackenzie changed little in his plan..."

I thought the Raynor routing was lost.

Is Cashmore just making stuff up?

Bob

 

[TEPaul]

I think it's always important to completely understand and keep in mind what's might be meant by a "routing" and what may not be.

Essentially a complete routing can be a particular sequence of distance and direction related "pieces" (holes). Sometimes called a "stick routing" (which certainly can be a complete routing) it can be nothing more than a dot (tee) with a line connecting another dot (green site) and on and on in a series of connected pieces.

In my mind it's certainly possible for two architect to use the exact same "stick routing" and come up with two golf courses that can be quite different. The reason for that, in my opinion, is the vast difference in actually "designing" an exactly similar "stick routing" can just make it so. Green sizes, shapes, orientation, bunker schemes, fairway sizes and lines, not to mention various earth-moving schemes on the same landform can simply make two identical routings into two courses that may almost be unrecognizable from the other.

A routing has been called the "bones" of a golf course and I think that's so. Probably more appropriately a routing should be called the "skeletion" of a golf course.

But we know that all human beings basically have fairly similar skeletal structures but are the similar people, similar looking, similar acting etc? Of course not.

The same is true for a routing as opposed to the "designing" of that routing---the "designing up" phase can make identical routings appear to be almost completely separate courses, in my opinion.

Such is the nature of the eternal "jigsaw puzzle" of golf course architecture!

[TEPaul]

BobC:

It most certainly seems like Tony Cashmore was looking at Seth Raynor's routing of CPC. Other-wise why or how could he say the things he did without simple assuming them? Mabye Tony Cashmore found the Raynor CPC routing or someone who has it showed it to him. CPC is a pretty private affair, and maybe they just never let others who've written about the course's creation see it.

But somehow I feel eventually the super sleuths of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com will get to the bottom of this!  

I just emailed Tony Cashmore and asked him if he's actually seen a Raynor routing of CPC. Maybe the man is sitting on the mother lode of all golf architecture mysteries and he doesn't even realize it!  

[TEPaul]

NAF:

In my opinion, that really isn't the point. Wouldn't you say it sure sounds like Tony Cashmore has looked at a CPC routing by Raynor? Otherwise how could he possibly have said the things he did in that article?

[T_MacWood]

Bob
I think he is half right. From what I understand Raynor did produce a preliminary plan for Cypress Point in the fall of 1924. But I do not believe it has ever been found...it may have been just a rough plan.

He may be confusing a Raynor plan with the drawing in the re-issued MacKenzie book Golf Architecture or the stick routing inside the cover of Shackelford's book--both dated 1926.

From what I understand the CPC project actually predates the MPCC project by a few months. However MPCC was financed by the Del Monte company, so work began right away, where as the CPC was seeking private investors/members before moving forward.

Noel
I agree it would be pretty shocking if Cashmore (who I believe lives in Australia) discovered the routing before Geoff...or Gib and George B. for that matter...i'm sure they looked long and hard for it. Although stranger things have happened.

That is an interesting question about swapping architects...I reckon MacKenzie's Fishers Island would have been more heavily bunkered.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Cashmore's contentions are pure malarky. If he has the proof, he needs to show it. I doubt he can. I doubt it very much.

[Mike_Cirba]

If someone says they have Raynor's routing map, I think we need to carbon-date it like the Shroud of Turin.  

[Michael Dugger]

From what research I've done, I always gathered that Mackenzie worked from the routing that Raynor already came up with.

Not without some tweaking, however, such as making #6 a par five, instead of a par 3.  I also think he reworked between 12 and 14, adjusting those holes.    

I thought that the routing in the back of Mac's little green Golf Archtitecture showed this different arrangement of holes?  I'll have to check when I get home.

Has anyone ever noticed that the routing of Cypress is basically a cork screw?  Take the juncture between #10 green and #11 tee, hold it up, and the whole course unravels like a fly strip.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Michael,
Perhaps you've seen the same mysterious 1924 plan that Mr. Cashmore mentions in his igolf article?

[Brad Swanson]

Since Raynor apparently routed CPC, did he have in mind which holes would be his stereotypical holes?  Since I can't speak from experience, can anyone out there tell which CPC hole would've been the alps, punchbowl, redan, etc, or did Raynor decide this aspect of his designs completely separate from his routings?

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

[TEPaul]

Michael;

It seems to me if one starts doing things on a routing like reworking an early par 3 into a par 5 and changing the routing of a #12 and #14 and such one really doesn't have the same routing. If you change an early par 3 into a par 5 in a walking routing like CPC what do you suppose happens to the holes that follow?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom Paul,
EXACTLY.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Brad,
Other then the 16th which would have obviously been a Biarritz or Chasm Hole, I'm sure there are some that would love to claim #15 as a Short.  Give that Raynor wanted #16 as a Par 4, this would explain any indifference to the performed routing--if it ever existed on paper.

The main problem with "Dr. CashMore's" claims is that he makes it sound as if he has seen this phantom Raynor routing. Prove it or shut-up and admit you made a mistake with your claims, and that maybe just maybe you don't know as much as you think you know, and as much as you dying for people to know. (It's obvious now why Commonwealth came out so bad)

Until someone finds it and can compare it and then make their claims--Dr. MacKenzie's Cypress Point will always be Dr. MacKenzie's Cypress Point.

I think its more then safe at being just that too.

[Gerry B]

Allegedly as the story goes -when Raynor in his original routing suggested 16 as a par 4 as he thought the carry was too long to be played as a par 3 - Ms. Hollins took out some lumber -hit a ball towrads the eventual green site -and said it will be a par 3.

I once heard a rumour that Ms. Hollins was very "close" friends with a certain Dr. Mackenzie -fact / fiction / folklore / grassy knoll?

Sounds possible as she was also involved in Pasatiempo.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Gerry,
You have to get your mind outta da gutta.

[Pat_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

My guess is it is a MacKenzie routing. We know Raynor identified the 16th and MacKenzie wisely kept it, but that's about all we know.

In light of the topography, the lay of the land, wouldn't it make sense that if Raynor identified the 16th, that he also had to identify the 17th ?  After all, where would one go upon leaving the 16th green.  And, if he identified the 17th, wouldn't he have, by default, have to have identified the 18th in the necessary return to the clubhouse ?

And, if Raynor identified the 16th, wouldn't he have necessarily had to have identified the 15th hole and 14th green ?[/color]

When MacKenzie and Hunter were brought in by Morse to finish Monterey Pens (a Raynor design), they commented that they would have liked to have redesigned/rerouted that course, but it was too late...it was in the final stages.
Does anyone know if Raynor is undeniably credited with identifying or routing # 16 ?[/color]

[Gerry B]

Tommy:

lol - I am not thinking clearly this week -too many distractions that I attribute to the following  :

 1)my Washington Huskies seeded #1 in the NCAA tourney - nothing like a 3 seed masquerading as a 1 seed. After the worst football season in school history - the normally sub par hoops team has been a pleasant surprise.

2) unlike you so cal residents this Torontonian has not touched a club in 2005  - salivating over my trip next week to the west coast. the names Thomas & Bell  x 2 / Watson & Whiting / Doak / Kidd keep poping up in my head for some reason

 

[T_MacWood]

Pat
It is difficult to say without knowing where Raynor intended the clubhouse to be located.

MacKenzie described how Raynor and Hollins discovered the 16th hole.

[TEPaul]

"MacKenzie described how Raynor and Hollins discovered the 16th hole."

Tom MacWood:

I'm not so sure one could say that Raynor discovered that golf hole. He might have been looking at the landform but if one reads carefully what MacKenzie said about Raynor and Hollins it seems quite clear he's saying that Raynor never thought a hole there could work while Hollins did. If Raynor never thought a hole would work there surely no one should give him credit for it. Just looking at a landform sure isn't using it in the type of routing context we're talking about here.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Keeping within the theme of this thread...the point MacKenzie was making in his book...he did not discover or design the hole...he inherited it from Raynor and Hollins or Hollins and Raynor, which ever you prefer. MacKenzie describes the exchange between the two, and how they arrived at the final version of the hole. He gives credit where credit is due, which is refreshing IMO.

[Pat_Mucci]

Pat
It is difficult to say without knowing where Raynor intended the clubhouse to be located.

Not really.

Forget the number of the holes, if he discovered what's currently the 16th then it follows that # 17 would have to begin in close proximity to the 16th green and the coastline is the obvious choice for the 17th hole, with the 18th returning back up to the balance of the property.

Like wise, # 15 would seem to naturally precede # 16.

Once # 16 was discovered, don't the other pieces, holes #'s 15, 17 and 18 fit in like a simple jigsaw puzzle ?[/color]

MacKenzie described how Raynor and Hollins discovered the 16th hole.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
If Raynor placed the clubhouse in the present 17th fairway or near the present 17th green/18th tee, it would definitely alter his routing. It wouldn't be the first time, at Fishers Island he chose to locate the clubhouse on a precious headlands.