Who routed Cypress Point

[Forrest Richardson]

Times change. The stymie, for example, is no longer part of golf. I do not think we can generalize that Morse was all bad. Like all of us, he was a product of his times and may not have used every bit of his self to the absolute best.

Tim -- You got the right answers, I believe. Geoff's book covers the changes as they are known. I think it worked out pretty good at No. 14. The routing anticipates the sea and delivers you across a threshold -- Seventeen Mile Drive -- to a closed world where 1/6 of the routing lives and breathes like no other string of holes will ever duplicate.

[Gib_Papazian]

The good Doctor gives credit for #16 to Seth and Marion Hollins, therefore it seems obvious to me there was a routing in place. Please don't stand there and write that Mackenzie had too big an ego to even look at what Raynor had sketched out. Seth was the greatest router of golf courses who ever lived, including Mackenzie.

Nobody will ever know the truth. That is it. I wish someday Raynor's plans would be discovered, but it seems more unlikely every day.

Did anybody ever think that Cypress did not want anyone to know that Raynor routed the course because he was not a household name on the west coast?

Don't laugh, stranger things have happened. I'll bet if you ask all 150 members at Chicago who was mainly responsible for the designe and constuction of their course, they would say C.B. Macdonald.

[Forrest Richardson]

No doubt that Raynor was good at routing. No doubt. But CPC was significantly altered when MacKenzie entered the picture.

I doubt the claim that they wanted Raynor cloaked -- after all, he had been hired initially.

[TEPaul]

Gib:

You should attempt to establish how and why Seth Raynor may have been the greatest router who ever lived--and hopefully you will in future books on him. Wayne Morrision and I are going to try to establish that William Flynn was.

This could become fun and very interesting if we can produce two mini themes in two separate books competing against each other to establish an architectural point!

[Forrest Richardson]

An interesting question for both "opposing" author groups to answer:

Does excellent routing require a great site?

Perhaps your writing might assume Raynor and Flynn each were commisioned to route a course on a pedestrian site. The eventual architect to be chosen based on their advance routing effort. Both are paid a nominal fee for this "test". Your books follow each man's process.

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

Possibly some hypothetical comparison of different designers and how well they routed would be interesting but we really don't want to rely on "assumptions" unless we absolutely have to!

We'd rather try to rely on documentation and we think a very fine example of routing well on a less than ideal site (or part of a site) could be Shinnecock's front nine. Certainly the thought and the lengths both Flynn and Lucien Tyng went to in trying to overcome this apparent drawback is most interesting.

We believe we can document this effort too because of the "routing and design analysis" done by C.H. Alison before the course's design went to construction!

This all does start to enter into a most interesting area though! Which would be the actual routing but how the "designing up" of the individual holes (or sets of them) MERGES into the actual routing to create the best effect in every way.

Very few people, I believe, really understand the distinctions here, that the two processes are actually separate but how important it is that they MERGE together well.

In my opinion, this misunderstanding (of the distinctions between a basic routing progression and the "designing up" of the individual holes in that routing progressin) COULD be one of the things most overlooked in the creation of Bethpage Black!

[ForkaB]

Is anybody out there at all capable of distinguishing a Raynor routing from a MacKenzie or a Ross or a Colt or a Flynn, or whomever?  From what I have read on all the "routing" threads we have had on here, I would say not.  This is interesting to me.

If someone were to find a painting hidden in an attic of some musty old villa in Italy that obviously came from the Renaissance do you really think that art scholars would have any difficulty in determining whether or not it was a Raphael or a Botticelli.  Is there anybody, architect or non-architect alike, who can't distinguish between the Glasgow buildings of "Greek" Thompson or Charles Rennie McIntosh?  Trust me, its simple.

So, why can't those of us (not me) who are truly knowledgeable and skilled just look at Cypress Point and say:  "Raynor!"  Or "Mackenzie!"?  If golf course routing is truly an art, why does it not allow even the greatest of the profession to leave a distinctive signature, even on one of the highest profile land forms known to us wee afficionados?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I would have to agree with Gib, Raynor most likely had a routing and MacKenzie had a good look at it. With out knowing the details of that routing, its hard to say how much MacKenzie departed from the Raynor plan. We do know he kept the 16th, but we also know he felt he had been stuck with the routing of Monterey Peninsula, obviously he would have preferred an alternate.

I can't see CPC worrying about Raynor having his name on the routing, after all, as Forrest said, they did hire him, as did just about every blue-blood golf club from coast to coast, he must have been fairly well known in those circles.

I think it is futile to prove Raynor or Flynn (or MacKenzie for that matter) was the greatest router of their time or all time. They were all very good, as were Thomas, Thompson, Colt and many others. That would like trying to identify the greatest singer of all time, without letting them have the same music.

I don't think you need have a great site to create an excellent routing, but you do need a site with some decent features -- at least a good site and not a featureless site. Courses like Shadow Creek are not great routings, they can only aspire to be good plans.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
I definitely think one could identify the work of Raynor, MacKenzie, Ross or Flynn. I'm not so sure about the routing, but given enough time I think they could accomplished too. Identifying the work of the rennaissance artists is one thing, a routing would be equivalent to identifying the aritst by his composition tendencies without seeing brush strokes and color. The study of golf archtecture (and the art of golf architecture for that matter) is very young - decades of study compared to centuries in the world of painitng.

[ForkaB]

Tom

The "work" vs. "routing" point was what I was trying to get at.  I do think you can distinguish painters merely through differences in composition.  Probably also composers and poets and sculptors and even other kinds of architects (building, landscape, etc.).  The fact that we don't seem to be able to do so with golf course architects may be due to what is (at least to me) the orders of magnitude of higher complexity involved in "composing" a work of "art" over a 150 acre 3-dimensional  "canvas" which also changes on both a seasonal and a secular basis.

[Forrest Richardson]

There are some distinctions to each man's work. I have not collected these, but it would be an interesting assignment. The quirks of routing are often overt, especially in the patterns of where we see shortish par-4s, finishing hole types, etc.

[TEPaul]

I think the "work" vs "routing" and the distinctions between the two processes is exactly the point too! This, to me, is the exact same thing as my mention of "basic routing progression" and the "designing up" of the individual holes in that basic routing progression!

The "designed up" part is where most can distinguish between architects, the "basic routing progression" is far harder. This is precisely the reason I think everyone has failed to establish conclusively that A.W. Tillinghast "routed" Bethpage Black. Certainly he "designed up" that routing (whether or not he did the routing) and so the course is quite identifiable as his!

And unfortunately is also the reason that too many people seem to think he must have done the routing too, simply because too many people fail to make a distinction between the "routing phase" and the "designing up" phase! It's very possible that different people can be separately involved in either, although too many people fail to realize the significance of and the distinctions between the two!

And there's even another--the "construciton phase". There's tons of misunderstanding concerning the distinctions there too!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rich, Unfortunately this dinosaur has never seen a Raynor course, and for that I'm deeply ashamed. However, I think do know the difference between the two and can tell the difference between a Flynn; a Raynor; a MacKenzie and a Tilinghast. We have a clubhere in Long Beach called Viriginia CC, and it carries a Bell Sr. & Tillinghast credit as the original designers. You can tell the difference between the Bell holes  and the Tillinghast holes. And the funny thing about it is that Tillie's input on the course was close to nil!

Pasadena CC--You may have not heard of this one in your world Rich, because it no longer exists. It was designed by several architects, but in aerial photos during the years, you can see the changes made by them, and there, clear as can be, in aerial photos, the design styles of several architects can be seen. You'll have to wait for that one from Daniel Wexler's next volume of--THE MISSING LINKS (Another shameless book plug!)

Tom Mac, Beautifully put.

Tom Paul, of all people to postulate on what and who is best! I thought you hated rankings?

I'm going to write-off my compadre Gib's comments last night as a result of a bottle or two of vino. (more then likely very good vino) Why shouldn't he be passionate about Raynor? He helped write the book on him! But, we have been through this before, and all of the pictures of Hugh Wigham in the clubhouse isn't going to change one inmeasurable fact.

I do think that Mac probably saw a plan or at least knew of some of Raynor's ideas, especially so bold of a feature as three holes and a tee for the 18th along the Pacific. Did he follow it to the tee? As passionate as some maybe on Raynor or MacKenzie, I'm going to say (speculate and not postulate) that these were two very distinct gentleman set in their ways. Both had their ideas of golf architecture. One was a schooled engineer the other a schooled surgeon. One was from the home of Golf; the other from the future home of Golf(As most American's seem to think) I think that a lot of these courses were designed the same way our most fluid designers today do it, and that is the ability to design courses in the field during the construction. Raynor unfortunately wasn't there. MacKenzie was.

With that, I think it is excellent that credit is given when credit is due, especially when it is included in almost every verse on Cypress Point, that after the original chosen designer, Seth Raynor had passed, Marion Hollins sought the services of noted and traveled golf architect Dr. A. MacKenzie to build what is commonly known as the Sistine Chapel of Golf. A fact so bold to even remind that with such a special site, how could even the most gifted of architect's not allude that the palate given was infallable. MacKenzie speaks of this in the Spirit of St. Andrews.

Hopefully this can be laid to rest before a war breaks out.

And from the words of Tiny Tim, "Merry Christmas, each and everyone of us!"

[Forrest Richardson]

I thought the original character was "Tiny Tommy", changed later to "Tiny Tim"? Right or wrong?

[Gib_Papazian]

Of course nothing is definitive, but you can spot certain characterisitics of a Raynor routing faster than any other architect in history because of his adherence to certain classic geometries.

He worked the natural angles of landforms and placed par-3's in logical spots that made sense with the template he used on almost every golf course.

As to Shinnecock, the front side has far less interesting land than the back, but it is interesting to note that (although Tom Paul knows this better than anyone) Flynn kept some of Raynors routing and original holes.

Evidently, Flynn had enough respect for the Sethman's original work not to fool around with the holes he designed that could be worked into his overall rebuild.

I am not going to stand here and say that the entire routing of Cypress Point was the work of Raynor, but it is inconceivable Mackenzie started from scratch. Robert Hunter sniffed a few disparaging lines in The Links that were obviously meant as a slap to Raynor's philosophy of repetition of classic themes, but Marion Hollins loved Raynor and knew full well that Women's National was as much his work as Emmett.

I'd be willing to bet that Hollins insisted that parts of the basic routing stay in place - although Mackenzie might have jiggered around the location of individual holes.

Oh, to go back in time and have been there! Goodale and I have gone round and round about this, but when I get to the other side, the first thing I am going to do is find out the truth about things like this. . . . . . I'll have an eternity to contemplate stuff like the meaning of life.

Shack has scoffed at me in the past on this very subject - and normally I would not have the temerity to call him out - but there is a picture of H.J. Whigham right there on the wall at Cypress standing next to Hunter and Mackenzie. . . . . . and its a long train ride from Chicago.

Whigham was one of the most respected men in American golf, his portrait hangs above the fireplace at the most important shrine in this nation.

Don't tell me he did not have a comment or two. Somebody asked him to come out and have a look, whether it was Hollins or Mackenzie does not matter. He was there for a reason.    

Let's see, #3 is an Eden, #7 is a Reverse-Redan, #15 a Short, #16 a Biarritz. . . . . . okay, maybe that is a bit of a stretch, but maybe not. At the time, Raynor was the big dog, not MacKenzie.

I would love to see what Raynor would have done had he lived long enough to build it . . . . . . I will be the first to admit that Mackenzie was the superior artist in every way, and there is little chance that Cypress wold have been as stunningly beautiful from the standpoint of bunkering if Raynor had completed his plans.

But Fishers Island - as a method of comparison - still turns me on (as a sequence of shots to be played) more than Cypress Point, even if it has more sex appeal than any course on the planet.

[Gib_Papazian]

And as for you Naccarato - oh dogmatic one - you have spent enough time with me to know I am every bit as forcefully opinionated in the throes of sobriety as when a trifle over-served with fine Zinfandel.  

[Paul Turner]

I think there's reasonable chance that more details of Raynor's plan will turn up.  Only in recent years has there been a concentrated research effort into the history of clubs, there must be tons of stuff to uncover yet, and you never know with Cypress.

I find it pretty tricky to find a definite formula for an architect's routing style.

PS
And of course Colt was the best, Muirfield proves it    

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Gib,
You of all people should know that Cabernet is my dog of choice. The rest are all soda pop. And yes, and let us not forget that someone HAS to be dogmatic so that some of us do not get too far ahead of ourselves:)

[Gib_Papazian]

Tommy,

Please, a great Cab is almost always better than a great Zin.

But a very good Zin is almost always better than a very good Cab.

I'll convert you yet, plus it is easier on the pocketbook as Zin drinkers (and winemakers) are more concerned with the intrinsic qualities of the vino than the label and positioning in the market.

Hint for the day:
Renwood, Old Vine from Amador County.  Best enjoyed when discussing the fine points of Raynor's genius with the president and head cheerleader of the Mackenzie Appreciation Society.

[ForkaB]

Tommy

I (supported by TomMacW!--bring on the smelling salts......) was trying to distinguish between individual holes and "routing."  Even an unread jerk like me can tell a Raynor or MacKenzie bunker from one of the 5,000 foot high AOTD's, but I haven't yet heard any convincing evidence from anybody on this site, on this thread or elsewhere, that anybody could tell a Raynor routing from a MacKenzie routing.  Do you understand the difference between holes and routings that I'm trying to explore?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rich, My misunderstanding.

In straight vertical aerials, it is hard to study routing other then how the holes are laid out and how certain similarities in design-style look from above. (i.e. bunkers, waterhazards, green shapes etc.) With Orthographic aerials, you can better read natural features, but still this doesn't make for the best way to study routings. Being there and seeing it is everything is what is most important. At least in my opinion.

At the library, I have had the opportunity to study a lot of aerial photos, as well as methods of how to look at them. One of the best in Vertical aerials is Stereo, where you actually are looking at an aerial through two different lenses. It allows one to really see just how dramatic the terrain might be, in this case, some of the hills here in SoCal, the very rustic and rugged nature of the canyons, valleys, hills etc.

I have had the opportunity at looking at one course (Pasadena CC) with this type of viewing apparatus, and it wasn't the most hilly site, but it certainly allowed me to understand better, how much of the course might be sand and how much of it might be just reflected light from the image. The course could have best been described as a very reminescent scene of early vertical aerials of Pine Valley--in SoCal.

[Bob_Huntley]

Tommy:

Never played a Raynor course?
Come up here and be my guest and see if we can find any Seth left on the Dunes.

Bob

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Bob, I hope to cure that ill real soon! Hope to see you very soon.

But you bring up a very good point. Without going into the modern aspects of it, could one tell the differences (before remodel) between Hunter's work and the original Seth Raynor plan at MPCC? If so, what were they? (thinking of the vast differences in principles, but ultimately the Golden Age standards that so many of us seem to enjoy.)

[TEPaul]

Rich Goodale said:

"Do you understand the difference between holes and routings that I'm trying to explore?"

This is precisely the point about speaking about a routing vs what follows in the process of course design--ie, "designing up" the routed holes!

I certainly do understand the difference you're trying to explore Rich! And it's a most necessary area to explore in analyzing routings and architecture!!

Looking at bunkering styles, green shapes and orientations and such, particularly in aerials is not EXACTLY analyzing a routing--not in my opinion anyway. And doing it from aerials certainly is not.

This is what I was trying to get at in detail in post #37. Looking at the details of a hole's design, like bunkering, bunkering style, green shapes and orientations is the "designing up" process that in many cases can be the step that follows the routing step or process!

Put another way, two (or even more architects) could use the exact same routing (hole progressions) and come up with golf holes that looked very different from each other, more particularly when looked at from on the ground.

Particularly when architects start to use earth movement differently on the same routing. Unfortunately, topography is the one thing that's almost impossible to see on aerials, so to really see how different architects could make what appeared to be quite similar hole progressions (routing) from an aerial, one would have to see the holes of the similar routing on the ground to really detect the similarities or differences.

But certainly putting even this two step process aside (routing vs designing up the routed holes) there are some obvious and not so obvious differences and distinctions between various architects that probably can be detected even from aerials. Certainly it becomes slightly easier if you know what the hole numbers are.

Certainly things like "parallelism" vs really good "triangulation" is one key you can detect from aerials with routings. Some architects clearly have a penchant for "bending" or "twisting" holes on their routings, some don't. That's something that can probably be detected solely as a routing distinction between architects.

This is a really good question on Rich's part--a really good question! In my opinion, the difference in the routing process and the "designing up" of the holes on a routing can be a huge distinction.

For instance, what if it turns out it really was Burbeck's routing at Bethpage Black that Tillinghast came in later and "designed up"? Would the course look like a Tillinghast course because of his "designing up" of Burbeck's routing? To many or most, or even almost all, my guess would be yes! But that has nothing to do with Burbeck's routing (if he did it) does it?

[TEPaul]

TommyN:

For us to challenge Gib to come up with ways to show that Raynor may have been a superior router than Flynn, or vice versa, is in no way ranking to me. If done well by both us and Gib it would be a very cool effort at comparative architectural analysis, in my opinion!

If only numerical magazine ranking could even begin to do such a thing, I guarantee you I'd be all for numerical magazine ranking.