Is Spyglass underrated because it is RTJ's work?

[Bob Jenkins]

Last weekend I had the pleasure of returning to the  Monterey Peninsula for the first time in about 15 years and playing Spyglass again after all those years, I was reminded about how good that track is. Of the 8 in our group, all good golfers, they universally raved about Spyglass and how there was not a hole on the course they did not like and each one presented a different and interesting challenge. I fully agree.

If there is a weak hole, ie. a "filler", one where RTJ slipped in maintaining the standard for the rest of the course, a hole that did not impress, I did not find it. Seems to me Spyglass Hill is greatly underated, although I admit to not having played a lot of the great courses on the eastern sea board of the US.

The caddies we had all preferred Spyglass over Pebble for the quality of the course.

Is it underrated because it was RTJ's course?

[Adam Clayman]

Bob, I, like you, have yet to compare it to anything northeast. I suspect the short answer is no. It is not underated because as I recall it does appear on most, if not all the lists.

Spyglass does suffer from it's split personality, though. The first five holes are all world class which I think is a universally agreed upon opinion. It's those remainders then that cause many afficionados to down play the quality of the whole course.

Your groups opinions are typical of most visitors. I suspect the biggest factor in why so many visitors like it is a feeling of comfort. Golfing amongst the pine tree lined holes is likely reminiscent of their home courses and leads to a lofty appraisal. Yet it is those same tree lined holes that fail to inspire, in the same way as the dunesland holes, that detract when serious or objective GCA analysis is applied.

The comment about the caddies comments is interesting, and I suspect the confusion between quality and difficulty is a major player in those evaluations.

 

[redanman]

No, it's over-rated to grossly over-rated due to its site and the feelings players often have about their experience on the Monterey Peninsula.  

The experience however is superb, the architecture is just "average for a good course".

Maybe 20 times, Adam.

[Adam Clayman]

Dr. Billiam- You have previously accused me of homerism in regards to Spyglass Hill. While I disagree with you on that I don't see how anyone who has played there could argue against the high quality of the greens architecture. Feel free to try and please include the number of times around your opinion is based on.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Adam,

I'd agree, those first five holes leave a lasting impression.

After that, many contend that it's like playing most courses in the Carolinas that are lined with Pine Trees.

I think the first five holes dominate the assessment of the golf course.  They sure are spectacular.

[PThomas]

if the first five at Spyglass were the last five, I how that would make people think of the course....would such a "building to a crescendo" improve some people's opinions?  

as Tom D wrote in his book, one wonders if the routing could have been different to bring the dunes into play on more holes ....

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Paul Thomas,

I think there's a valid point with respect to the first 5 holes being the last 5 holes, but, that ain't gonna happen.

With respect to Doak's comment, I wonder how many people have asked the same question about Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes ?

[Bill_McBride]

Since RTJ was responsible for reversing the direction of play of Eugene CC to its lasting benefit, maybe he could have done the same for Spyglass Hill!

Imagine playing that course in the existing corridors, greens and tees reversed, and finishing in the dunes and back up to the clubhouse.  You'd be looking forward to that all day!  

Instead you play #1-5, happy as a clam, and head up into the woods on #6, never to see the ocean or the dunesland again.  What a waste........

[Adam Clayman]

It's my opinion that if they had been able to keep the entire course on the dunesland it would better than it's nearest neighbor Cypress Point.

As far the first 5 being the closing, I don't think its as easy as that. The best scenario would be to end after #6. So the dunesland five would baically be the climax. The other factor that makes this iteration work is starting on #7 which is likely the weakest hole on the property.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Imagine playing that course in the existing corridors, greens and tees reversed, and finishing in the dunes and back up to the clubhouse.  You'd be looking forward to that all day!  

Instead you play #1-5, happy as a clam, and head up into the woods on #6, never to see the ocean or the dunesland again.  What a waste........

Bill, in the event the course had been routed as you describe, no doubt you'd have experts around here complaining about all the infernal trees on the first 13 holes, and suggesting that one shouldn't even bother with the front nine, just play the back and spend the other two hours working on getting access to Cypress and MPCC  

"What a waste"  seems like a glass-half-empty view.  For me, #8, which is a world-class par 4, and the 2 par threes on the back, at least, add to attraction of 1-5 to make Spyglass worth the price of admission.  Only 18 is dull, and it has that in common with Cypress.

[Bob_Huntley]

I shall be hitting balls on the range today or tomorrow and Bob Hanna, at 90 years of age, will be there complaining about not hitting the ball out of his shadow.

He was the Executive Director of the Northern California Golf Association for many years. It was Bob who organised the whole Spyglass movement and was supported by Sam Morse. Bob wrote every check in paying for the design and building of the course and buildings.

If any of you have a specific question, place it on this thread and I'll get you an answer from the horses mouth.

Bob

[Tim Bert]

I have never played the course, but would the first five holes have more of a lasting impact if they switched the nines?  Is Spyglass and out and in course or an out-in-out-in course?  If those five holes weren't the last five, but were at least on the back nine so you played the front nine in anticipation of getting there - would that help?

[Bill_McBride]

Imagine playing that course in the existing corridors, greens and tees reversed, and finishing in the dunes and back up to the clubhouse.  You'd be looking forward to that all day!  

Instead you play #1-5, happy as a clam, and head up into the woods on #6, never to see the ocean or the dunesland again.  What a waste........

Bill, in the event the course had been routed as you describe, no doubt you'd have experts around here complaining about all the infernal trees on the first 13 holes, and suggesting that one shouldn't even bother with the front nine, just play the back and spend the other two hours working on getting access to Cypress and MPCC  

"What a waste"  seems like a glass-half-empty view.  For me, #8, which is a world-class par 4, and the 2 par threes on the back, at least, add to attraction of 1-5 to make Spyglass worth the price of admission.  Only 18 is dull, and it has that in common with Cypress.

"What a waste" is relative - it's a very strong course as is, but I was thinking about what it could have been.  Given the land available, I think the dynamics would have been better had the routing wound up in the most exciting area rather than beginning there.  

RTJ went to Eugene CC 40 years after it opened and turned Chandler Eagan's routing upside down.  That won't happen at Spyglass but IMHO it would be a better course if it did.  If that's "half empty" thinking, so be it!

[Jon Spaulding]

I have always enjoyed SH, but would not consider it underrated by any means. Pretty highly thought of....and highly rated.

Would agree with an earlier comments on the "Peninsula " and the "dune" factors. I have found many that prefer SH over PB not in a design sense, but in a difficulty/pace of play sense (myself included).

It's also not the "event" that PB is nowadays.....no damn hotel stay required!

[Pete Lavallee]

Bob,

I always found it counterintutive that the finest stretch of holes would come first. If possible could you ask Mr. Hanna if:

This was RTJ's idea; if so, did anyone try to talk him out of this routing scheme?

Has the club ever considered switching the nine's; to keep the seaside holes for later in the round?

[AndrewB]

If those five holes weren't the last five, but were at least on the back nine so you played the front nine in anticipation of getting there - would that help?

I just had the opportunity to play Spyglass three times this weekend in a tournament.  I started on the 10th in two of those rounds and really enjoyed playing the course in that order much more (I'm hoping I've been successful at detaching myself from how I scored in those rounds).  I felt starting up on the hill amidst the trees, then working down to the ocean, then back up into the trees provided more variety and balance to the round.

I agree with the comments that the seventh is a relatively weak hole, and surely more interesting hazards could have been created than the fake little ponds near the seventh, 14th, and 15th greens.  Overall I think my impression of the course suffered from the high expectations I had based on the many previous comments I've heard.  I like it, but apparently not as much as everyone else does.

[Rich Goodale]

I would say underappreciated or even overdismissed, rather than underrated.

As a golf course it is a solid one with very few flaws, and occasional world-class inspiration.

I personally think that the 1st 5 are overrated.

#1 is a virtually unequalled transition/opening hole, transporting you from anticipation to mystery to spectaclular challenge.  If there is a better #1 in the world, I haven't played it.

$2 is also superb.  Great use of elevation to show the golfer that 350 doesn't necessarily mean birdie.

#3 is mediocre.  Basically a drop shot par-3 to an island green, where the water is replaced by iceplant.

#4 is all-world, and we all know why.

#5 is OK, but RTJ blew this one.  A little work from a shaper, and this could have been THE Redan of American golf

As for the inland holes, yes it is a bit reminiscent of Georgia or the Carolinas, but without the cooling breezes and with the anticipation of a post round restauration that will consist of proper cuisine rather than greasy pork and vinegar served by wenches in ill-fitting tops (hmmm.  is that a pro or a con?).

#6  Very much a "You're not in Kansas" anymore hole.  When I played it (mostly in the late 70's/early 80's) it was (from the back tees) a try to hplace a hard cut between the bunkers.  When I followed Watson and Nicklaus one year and saw each of them seemingly effortlessly fly the right hand bunker, I knew that they played a game with which I was not familiar.

#7  I'll disagree with Andrew, and say that this is a very good golf hole.  Virtually the same golf hole is #15 at Harbourtown, which we all seem to love.

#8 is very good.  Seemingly wide but, very narrow if you are thinking strategically.  2nd shot semi-blind to a very complex skyline/treeline green.

#9  A weakness, in that without googling up a routing I can't differntiate betgween this and the 18th.  All I can say about either of them is that they are workmanlike golf holes requiring skill and precision.

The back nine has some superb holes, and some very interesting ones.  There are no "ho-hum"'s by my standards.

#10 has a GREAT vertical hazard in the tree in the fairway to the left which makes the hitting of a controlled low draw far preferred to the bomb shot irf you want to shorten the hole.

Can't comment on 11 (or 16) as they have been changed since I last played them.

#12 is the finest par-3 in the world, in that it was the site of my 1st hole in one.  More seriously, it (and 15) are far better examples of a quality drop-shot par 3 than #3.  A very good example as to how context tends to influecne architectural criticism.

#13 is a hole which grows on me in reflection and over time.  It is simple--hit it solidly up a hill, twice, then 2-putt if you can.  Pure golf, without the frilly knickers that so many take as "greatness' these days.

#14 is a brue of a Par-5 that will challenge all of the pros.  For us mortal, it gives all soert of options for tacking our way to the hole.  Kinda liek the 14th at the Old Course, no?

#15 is another cool drop shot hole, and the pond is very much in character with the topography.

#16, a great long 4.  Looks a lot like #14, but you have to get there in 2!  How you do it is up to you.  That is golf.

#17 is a great short 3. even though (I think) it is not in driving range.  Lots of angles off the tee and a superb green.

#$18--see #9 above.

'm getting tired and busy, but will jump back in if others so wish.....

Rich

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I always feel like I have been in a heavy weight fight after playing there. I am with everyone on the relative greatness of any of the first 6 holes especially 1,4 and 5. It is funny how several courses from that era made you play 1 strong par 4 after another. I think the first 5 separate Spyglass from say Champions which I played again this week. Both just make you make good shot after good shot or pay the consequenses. The only weekness to me is 3 par 3's which are downhill shots.

[Gary Slatter]

Spyglass is an excellent course and I don't think the designer's name has anything to do with it's rating.  The routing or changing the order of play would not affect the rating for mature golfers who enjoy a hole wherever it comes, I personally like the present course, every hole!
The weaker holes may be the downhill par 3s, although when you play the proper tees they can be fun.
Yes Spyglass is underrated; No, not because of the designer's name. Maybe on this website but not in general.

[David Stamm]

This may be an anamoly, but it seems every time I talk to golfers around where I live, when the subject of the Monterey Peninsula comes up, almost everyone seems to say that SH is better than Pebble. And these are not arch-type guys. I think it gets plenty of love were I live, and in fact, I would say it gets more than PB from alot of players. I don't agree with that, however, it is one of my favs.

[AndrewB]

Rich,

Thanks for the comments on the entire course.  I'm hoping you'll jump back in with some replies to these ...

#6  Very much a "You're not in Kansas" anymore hole.  When I played it (mostly in the late 70's/early 80's) it was (from the back tees) a try to hplace a hard cut between the bunkers.  When I followed Watson and Nicklaus one year and saw each of them seemingly effortlessly fly the right hand bunker, I knew that they played a game with which I was not familiar.

The hole has apparently had a new tee added in the past few years.  For me the left-hand bunker is well out of range and if I hit a good one I can get even with the right-hand bunker.  The drive would be more interesting for me if I was long enough to have to place it between the two.

#7  I'll disagree with Andrew, and say that this is a very good golf hole.  Virtually the same golf hole is #15 at Harbourtown, which we all seem to love.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I don't remember the 15th well enough (from the one round I played at Harbourtown many many years ago) to have any sort of reply to this.

If anything makes this a good hole, it's the green.  The sharp right to left slope with the hazard short left of the green will steer everyone to miss the green and layup to the right, leaving difficult shots.  Missing the green left lets you pitch into the slope, and laying up down the left allows you to hit your approach into it.

#8 is very good.  Seemingly wide but, very narrow if you are thinking strategically.  2nd shot semi-blind to a very complex skyline/treeline green.

Yes, the choice from the tee is a side-hill lie with a half-blind shot but a good angle, or a flat lie with a clear view but a bad angle (assuming the hole is on the right half of the green).  I tried to hit it down the right side, but the way the rough drops off sharply down to seven seemed to get me (and others) to steer it down the left instead.

#12 is the finest par-3 in the world, in that it was the site of my 1st hole in one.  More seriously, it (and 15) are far better examples of a quality drop-shot par 3 than #3.  A very good example as to how context tends to influecne architectural criticism.

I'm curious, can you expand on why you feel that 12 and 15 are better drop-shot holes than three?

I felt that 12 was the best of the three based on the angle and slope of the green, making distance control very important but also seemingly giving the option of landing it on the front right and trying to run it to the back.  (This is why I didn't mention the little pond on this hole in my previous comment: I think it's used well.)

#14 is a brue of a Par-5 that will challenge all of the pros.  For us mortal, it gives all soert of options for tacking our way to the hole.  Kinda liek the 14th at the Old Course, no?

I actually don't see many options here.  Try to hit it anywhere in play from the tee, then layup to your favorite yardage with a mid to long iron, then hit some sort of wedge to the hole.  It doesn't become interesting until the approach shot into the green, but I will say the green has some locations that are very difficult to get close to.

#16, a great long 4.  Looks a lot like #14, but you have to get there in 2!  How you do it is up to you.  That is golf.

#17 is a great short 3. even though (I think) it is not in driving range.  Lots of angles off the tee and a superb green.

I very much liked both of these holes.  Both have options from the tee as well as challenging approaches and greens.

[Tim Leahy]

I think Spyglass suffers as being part of the Pebble/Crosby tourny lineup. If it were not part of that and were not up the street from Pebble, it would have held several majors or had its own tour stop and would have had memorable moments on tv and in golf history. As it stands now, I still like the routing, but then again I open my gifts Christmas eve too!

[Adam Clayman]

Rihc, I'll drag you back but only to say that I agree with you re; #5.

Of course I disagree about #3 as well as 9 and 18.

On cursory exam 9 & 18 feel similar, I will give you that, but in reality they are very much different and have different character. Akin to twins, not identical.

Re the third, The subtle slope of the green away from the golfer combined with natures ability to severely mess with one's helmut through the winds direction and velocity make it everything a golf hole should be. Throw in the blind nature of the fronting bunker and the Island aspects w/ recovery and what more do you want? How about a view of open expansive Pacific Ocean to place joy on the hearts of all those less sophisticated than you?

[Mike Benham]

#12 is the finest par-3 in the world, in that it was the site of my 1st hole in one.  More seriously, it (and 15) are far better examples of a quality drop-shot par 3 than #3.  A very good example as to how context tends to influecne architectural criticism.

Hmmm, 3 drop shot par-3s on one course?  So much for variety ...

[Bob_Huntley]

Rich,

#14 is a brue of a Par-5 that will challenge all of the pros.  For us mortal, it gives all soert of options for tacking our way to the hole.  Kinda liek the 14th at the Old Course, no?

I actually don't see many options here.  Try to hit it anywhere in play from the tee, then layup to your favorite yardage with a mid to long iron, then hit some sort of wedge to the hole.  It doesn't become interesting until the approach shot into the green, but I will say the green has some locations that are very difficult to get close to.

as well as challenging approaches and greens.

Andrew,

I think it was Stuart Appelbey at the A.T.&T., who I thought was was delaying the game, until I realized he was waiting for the previous group to exit the tee. He was 246 yards away and plonked his ball on the upper left of the green where it trundled down toward the pin.

I think RTJ would have eaten his hat had he seen it.

Bob

[Tags:]

Tags: