[Mike Benham]

Pulling this photo (without permission) from Mr. Hutto's Fabulous adventure ...

Does this hole look natural in its setting?

Are the design/placement of the bunkers consistant with other holes on the course?

What features of this hole would you change (if any)?

Does anyone have a photo of this hole before the changes were made?

[Pete Lavallee]

Mike, I was wondering who built these bunkers, as I believe there was originally a pond there and they changed it for drainage purposes. Were one of the Jones boys used?

[Mike Benham]

Mike, I was wondering who built these bunkers, as I believe there was originally a pond there and they changed it for drainage purposes. Were one of the Jones boys used?

Yes, there was a pond ...

[Joel_Stewart]

Mike, I was wondering who built these bunkers, as I believe there was originally a pond there and they changed it for drainage purposes. Were one of the Jones boys used?

Mr. Tom Fazio was used as the architect.  This was one of the holes that was unplayable at the AT&T a few years ago.  IMHO those bunkers look terrible and he destroyed the 16th hole as well.

[Brent Hutto]

I can't find an online picture of the sixteenth at Spyglass but to me the bunkering around the eleventh green is consistent with that fronting the sixteenth although the ones at eleven are more extensive and somewhat more elaborate. For that matter the seventeenth green is bunker somewhat similarly.

Perhaps there are subtleties to bunker designs that I'm not tuned in to. I mentioned in my writeup that I though Spyglass #11 was almost a dead ringer for Pasatiempo #10's new Doak-installed bunkers although I guess the Pasa tenth is a Par 4 and the bunkers there are on the left (downslope) side instead of the right.

Just my newbie's non-technical appraisal is that the eleventh hole at Spyglass plays interestingly, looks beautiful and the bunkers are quite striking (moreso in person than on the picture, which flattens the contours out somewhat). I have never seen the old eleventh, obviously.

[Mike Benham]

Mr. Tom Fazio was used as the architect.  This was one of the holes that was unplayable at the AT&T a few years ago.  IMHO those bunkers look terrible and he destroyed the 16th hole as well.

Joel -

If the bunkers were removed on the right, would you like the hole better, or would you prefer the original design?

Mike

[A_Clay_Man]

Those bunkers are surlyn magnets.

If the hole is played properly, they should rarely be challenged, save for the "go for it" guy.

The bunker section closest to the green is the easiest to recover from. The others are just containment, because the hazard on the right is absolute death with nowhere to reasonably drop.

[Mike Hendren]

I think they are beautiful.

Throw a few trees in there and I could swear it's The Good Doctor's original work at the 1st, 17th or 18th at Cypress Point Club.    

Fazio get props in my book if he indeed did the work.  But then again, I'm a sucker for The Spy.

FWIW,  with a few exceptions on this side of the pond, I believe "natural bunkers" is an oxymoron.  Heck, I remain somehwat skeptical that they did nothing more than rake a few blow-outs at Sand Hills - how DID the right side of the 4th green get built-up?

Mike
A Bit Testy This A.M.

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

If the hole is played properly, they should rarely be challenged, save for the "go for it" guy.

Adam,

Good observation and a nice compliment to the architect.

Mike

[ForkaB]

I'm with you, Mike.

I played the old Spyglass #11 many times (before the arrivistes came and started calling the course that "Philly" or "Frisco" sounding "The Spy".....).

I think the new hole is a VAST improvement, for a number of reasons, particularly:

--many more 2nd shot options (it used to be a short iron lay up, unless you were able to hit the power fade around the corner).
--much more "natural."  One of my first comments about the inland holes of Cypress was ("Looks like 6-18 at Spyglass, but with more and better bunkering.").  Gives you an idea as to what Sypglass could be if you used the land more creatively.
--highlights the green, which is a very good green.

And, I agree that it looks VERY much like #10 Pasatimpo, but actually better.....

[Scott_Burroughs]

This thread and previous talk of this hole made me think this
had been done in the last couple of years.  According to this
September, 1998 shot, it's at least 7 years old.  When was it done?

[THuckaby2]

I'm with you all, for the most part.  #11 Spyglass is a much better hole today than it ever was.  Before it was a mandated layup 99% of the time.  Today, one still should layup, like Adam says, but get a good drive down there around the corner and sit there at less than 220 and well... it's tough NOT to give it a go.  That makes it a lot more fun, with a lot more challenge and a lot more thought.  And yep, it does look more natural today.  The pond always did look really weird... to me anyway.

I'm struggling with the comparison to #10 Pasa, though, and I sure don't see the similarities.  But no need to beat that horse to death AGAIN.

 

[Mike Benham]

My issue with the old 11th is that the lake or pond, just like the other ponds on Spyglass are woefully out of place for the property.  
Why were they built?  They weren't natural in there setting were they?  Or if they were built to clean up the natural marshy areas of the course, they they were done in manner to make them look articificial.

I'm not crazy about the bunkers on the right, yes I like the effect of a bunker but I'm not sure that a series of 4 or 5 bunkers is consistant with the bunkering pattern of the rest of the course.

It is a much better hole today then before.

Mike

Ps:  Scott - it had to be at least 15 years ago ... and I don't like the ponds at Poppy Hills either ...

[Scott_Burroughs]

My issue with the old 11th is that the lake or pond, just like the other ponds on Spyglass are woefully out of place for the property.  
Why were they built?  They weren't natural in there setting were they?  Or if they were built to clean up the natural marshy areas of the course, they they were done in manner to make them look articificial.

Mike,

My guess is to why the ponds were built is that they were a RTJ, Sr. staple.  Par 3's over water were one of his biggest trademarks.  #16 at Augusta was originally from a different angle and had just a meandering creek by the green, then RTJ came in and we have the hole as it is today.

[ForkaB]

Tom

I see the similarity as being a long 2nd shot to a green behind a dip with stylized bunkering on the downward side of a natural slope.

I think that the Faz' bunkering is better placed (vis a vis player strategy) and more "natural" than Dr. MacK's/Dr. Doak's.  Sorry for the heresy.............

Oh yeah, and I love that pond on the 12th--site of my 1st hole in one......

[Brent Hutto]

I think that the fifteenth and especially the twelfth at Spyglass are beautiful holes. However, the ponds are so out of character with the rest of the course that having two such holes is redundant at best. There's also the funky, penal pond fronting the fourteenth green to consider.

I'd rather have seen some sort of postage-stamp with bunkers or dry ravines instead of water instead of the fifteenth. That way there'd be just two funky RTJ water holes on the back nine. Let's face it, even those of us who love Spyglass Hill have to admit it's not a course with a totally consistent look and feel from hole to hole. Very eclectic, in fact. Sort of an RTJ sampler perhaps?

That brings up another question. Since I liked Spyglass so well, what courses should I check out that may share some of the same playing characteristics (assuming the feel can't really be duplicated away from the Monterey Peninsula)? How about the Chanticleer course right up the road from me in Greenville? Or maybe the Dunes in Myrtle Beach?

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

I gave kudos to your ace on 12 in another thread recently.  Yes, that is a good one.

Re the similarities of 11 Spyglass and 10 Pasa, well... if you say so.  I see a dog leg right par 5 that usually requires a layup versus a dogleg left par 4.  One has bunkers on the right, the other bunkers on the left.  One goes out and up, the other goes out and down.  One has bunkers on an upslope, the other has bunkers in a flat low area.  But if that's similar in your world, well... I do like the Goodalian world, so that's fine by me.  

As for heresies, there are no such things in my world, not re golf, not even re religion.  I've said it before and I'll say it again:  when it comes to golf courses, I don't give a rat's ass about the WHO - I just care about the WHAT.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Rihc- Dunes Club is a good comparison for a hodgepodge of stylistic look.

Looking again at the angle of the original pic on this thread, I couldn't help but think of last weeks Masters, and one shot on the TV that almost blended the original Mac bunker on #10 with it's right grrenside bunker. Looking at these I from this angle, I thought Augusta. Weird!

[Joel_Stewart]

Joel -

If the bunkers were removed on the right, would you like the hole better, or would you prefer the original design?

Yes and yes.  I think the green would be framed better if the first 2 bunkers where removed.  

Yes I thought the hole was better with the water.

This hole was engineered poorly from the start.  RTJ was working on a very small budget and the technology was not their to drain this area properly.

[THuckaby2]

Joel - interesting - you really thought the hole was better with the water?  Why?

Man it took a HUGE drive to even get to a spot where one could think about reaching... to me that's kinda boring... drive, layup, some sort of pitch.  Of course one did have to be careful with the layup, and the pitch was never easy... but still, having a choice beats not having one as I see it.

You must REALLY dislike the current bunkers.. I can understand that I guess.

But please do expand on this.  Thanks!

TH

[Doug Wright]

I played the old #11 with the pond/water feature a couple times a hundred years ago   but not the new hole pictured. Dredging out recollections from my quickly failing memory, I am pretty sure I liked the hole. It provided a heroic challenge on either the 2d or 3rd shot and was the first death by water hole on the course (unlike--and complementing IMO--the 7th, which has water left and bailout right), thereby breaking up the monotony of the preceding five holes that, let's face it, are a bit of a slog. The new hole appears to be "more of the same" to me.

The new hole looks like it has too many bunkers on the right, yes, but there may have been a reason for them (and the bunker on the left too)--to capture balls heading for death on what is mainly a resort course. Not the first time that's been done...

I really liked 'Spy,' 'The Glass' or whatever other moniker one wants to attribute to it now. (The logo and hole names are really cool too!) Definitely schizoid, definitely a challenging course but one that I thoroughly enjoyed way back when.

Best,

[Eric Johnson]

Pulling this photo (without permission) from Mr. Hutto's Fabulous adventure ...

Does this hole look natural in its setting?

Are the design/placement of the bunkers consistant with other holes on the course?

What features of this hole would you change (if any)?

Does anyone have a photo of this hole before the changes were made?

It may take a little digging through some boxes of old photos but, I am pretty sure I have some pictures of the old pond.  Maybe even some of the pond re-construction in Fall 1995.  I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I must be blind for I feel the bunkering there fits in with the rest of the course just fine. I also like the hole and find the bunkering is severe enough to make a real good risk/reward aspect to one's second shot.

[Lou_Duran]

I'm with Tiger on this one.  I was playing my fifth stroke after a drop from right of the bunkers (from a creek/hazard that may have drained into the former pond).   The bunkers definitely caught my attention on the shot as well as the third that I pushed into the hazard.

Ditto for #16.  What is wrong with this long, difficult par 4?  What was done to ruin it?  I earned a pretty good par on it with four well played shots.

Spyglass today is much improved over what was there when I played it in 1983.  Despite considerable rain this year, the only wet spots I found were well off the playing areas where I unfortunately had to hit my foul balls from on several occasions.  And it has plenty of teeth; some 18 strokes higher than my only other time there.  Age may have a bit to do with it.

[Mike Benham]

I must be blind for I feel the bunkering there fits in with the rest of the course just fine. I also like the hole and find the bunkering is severe enough to make a real good risk/reward aspect to one's second shot.

If I recall, there are no other holes on the course that have a series of 4 or 5 bunkers bunch together ... the shape and edges may be consistant with the rest of the course ...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()