[Tim Pitner]

Wayne critiqued this hole far better than I could, but I wanted to pile on regarding the bunkering.  It's over the top.  If this green complex were built today, it would be cited as an example of overbunkering--and rightly so.

 

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Welcome aboard.  We may be a small band of MacK critics, but we mean well.  Get rid of the mounds and overabundance of bunkers and that hole would be a lot better.  MacKenzie has many holes like this, well at least they are that way now.  

Consider other great architects; do you see a systematic overuse of bunkers and mounds?  This hole is better with less yet MacKenzie always seems to go with more.  I've been saying this for some time now.  It is good to see that others agree, even if the numbers are small.  This isn't to say that MacKenzie isn't one of the very best golf architects of all time.  But in my opinion, he made some consistant mistakes.

[Gib_Papazian]

Wayne,

So, are you saying that bunkers for visual impact are superfluous and a mistake?

This speaks to the form vs. function argument that goes far beyond golf architecture.  

It is a matter of opinion whether Mackenzie's style and aesthetic choices are better than a pure minimalist approach you seem to advance.

Personally, I do not think the "hole is better with less," it seems Mackenzie tries to blend strategy with visual impact - and succeeds with stunning results.

There is plenty of room in the tent for everybody; I do not mind artificiality and an obviously "engineered look" either (read: Raynor).

[Tom Huckaby]

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

[Tim Pitner]

Tom H,

I haven't had the pleasure of playing Cypress Point, but if I did, believe me, I wouldn't be standing on #15 tee critiquing the bunkers--I'd be soaking it all in.  

However, to me, the bunkering and mounding detract from the natural beauty of the hole--not something an architect should do.  

I believe a person can simultaneously enjoy something and think about how it could be better.  

[Brent Hutto]

I've seen several MacKenzie courses and it seems to me that elevating an area beside or behind a green to provide visibility for bunkers is a common MacKenzie idiom. Common enough that I must conclude that he thought having those bunkers visible was a desirable thing.

To my mind such bunkering can hardly be thought of as a mistake. It was quite intentional. It was a technique for creating the look that MacKenzie wanted for those holes. I'm somehow failing to miss the point concerning what real or imagined harm is done by raised, visible bunkers behind the green...Do the critics believe that hiding those bunkers behind the hole would induce players to attempt a different shot?...Or is it the possibility that the raised area helps provide depth perception for players who play by eye and feel rather than yardage, thereby making the shot too easy to hit?...Or are we applying some modern idea of "minimalism" to an architect who never (to my knowledge) espoused anything like it as a design philosophy?

I tend to believe it's the latter. Perhaps we true believers are tempted toward the kneejerk conclusion that any feature which seems obviously created by a trackhoe or a bunch of guys with shovels is a deteriment to the course although a similar feature "found" and incorporated into the design without moving earth is a blessing.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom H,

I haven't had the pleasure of playing Cypress Point, but if I did, believe me, I wouldn't be standing on #15 tee critiquing the bunkers--I'd be soaking it all in.  

But, to me, the bunkering and mounding detracts from the natural beauty of the hole--not something an architect should do.  

I believe a person can simultaneously enjoy something and think about how it could be better.  

Tim - yes, that's possible.

I just do believe if that's what your thinking as you actually stand on that tee - that there is any detraction whatsoever and that it can be improved in any way - you are way way way too into architecture.

Which I suppose is fine.... it just has me scratching my head.  I just play the game.

In any case, isn't how it works in person what matters?

TH

[Brad Swanson]

IMHO, #11 at Shinnecock may be outside the bounds of what is considered a "short" par 3.  In a typical fall breeze, it took a decent 6 iron for me to hit the middle of the green, and, while I'm no Matt Ward, I'm not the shortest of knockers either.  I guess the counter argument could be made with #7 at Pebble Beach though.  What's hard to appreciate about SH #11 unless you see it in person is the severity of the drop-off just beyond the green.  It makes the front bunkers look positively inviting.

Cheers,
Brad

[Tommy Williamsen]

It is hard not to go with 15 at Cypress Point and 10 at PV.  It seems to me that from the member tees 17 at Sand Hills is a pretty good little hole.

 I would also nominate 5 at Royal North Devon.  It is about 135 yards, generally into a stiff breeze that requires a knock down shot to a well bunkered and contoured green.

[Gib_Papazian]

Huckster,

You hit it directly on the head.

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'?

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.  

[Tom Huckaby]

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.  

Gib, I have never read a better expression of what this is all about that those two sentences.  Wow is that right on.. and wow is that eloquently stated.

That's it, my friends.

[Tim Pitner]

Tom H,

I haven't had the pleasure of playing Cypress Point, but if I did, believe me, I wouldn't be standing on #15 tee critiquing the bunkers--I'd be soaking it all in.  

But, to me, the bunkering and mounding detracts from the natural beauty of the hole--not something an architect should do.  

I believe a person can simultaneously enjoy something and think about how it could be better.  

Tim - yes, that's possible.

I just do believe if that's what your thinking as you actually stand on that tee - that there is any detraction whatsoever and that it can be improved in any way - you are way way way too into architecture.

Tom,

Unfortunately, while standing on any tee, I usually have too many swing thoughts in my head to think about anything else, including architecture.  

What you and Gib seem to be missing is that sometimes nature's work is impressive enough that one doesn't need to "construct" something beautiful.  IMO, that's where architects often go wrong--they try to do too much (see Mr. Engh).  

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim:

I don't think either Gib or I are missing that at all.

We just seem to see a beauty that you don't, and that's fine.. you know what they say about beauty after all.

Beyond that I cannot possibly improve on Gib's summation.

TH

[Patrick Kiser]

Bill,

Don't you know you're talking a mid iron for most players on what you're calling a short par 3?  How dare you even suggest anything near 150!

Good thing the ''distance'' police hasn't caught you yet on this.  Otherwise a 1,000 wet lashes for you my friend.

Here ... let me help you out.

Oh Shivas!  Calling Shivas!

P.S. I already had my lashes by the hypocrisy thread master

Are all of these holes under 150 yards?  That's my definition of a short par 3.

Most of MacDonald's Short par 3s, and even #15 at Cypress barring a real blow, are tough birdie, not so tough par.  Hit the green, 2 putt, keep moving.  Most of the other holes you guys have submitted are pretty much the same.  Hit the green, 2 putt, move on.

#7 at Newcastle, by contrast, is a truly severe test.  I'm not kidding about the bathtub sized target area.  Anything outside that target was down the hill behind, or down the hill in the bunker left.

Now Wayne's hole does look terrifying.    How long is that hole?

[wsmorrison]

"...You hit it directly on the head.

Some people are incapable of appreciating embellishments to function that elevate the simply utilitarian to high artistic achievement."

Gib,

That is a load of crock.  Some people are incapable of thinking the same way you do.  So that makes us incapable of appreciating embellishments that elevate utilitarian to artistic achievement?  Jeezus Christmas, you actually believe that nonsense?  

MacKenzie made the conscious decision to add artificial mounds and bunkers to many of his courses.  Why?  This is the architect that everyone positions as Mr. Natural.  What is it that makes these additions to the natural landscape an improvement?  It disconnects the architecture and is entirely unnatural looking.  You look at it as an artistic achievement.  I look at it as unnecessary and unappealing.  But I'm incapable of appreciating it?  Maybe you should consider a different point of view as reasonable.  I don't criticize you for any inability but rather a different sensibility.  For whatever reason you are incapable of that consideration.  Shame on you.  

The mistake I speak of is the overwhelming of the naturalism with the man-made.  Please don't kid yourself into thinking his greenside mounds and bunkers are natural looking.  They are almost as unnatural as Raynor green sites.

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

Completely irrelevant.  

"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."

God's best work?  That is your opinion.  Plenty of others might see better work at Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Himalayas, the Andes, Lake Como and elsewhere.  Cypress Point may mean the world to you, but if you cannot recognize others may feel differently, then you are sadly disillusioned.

There is plenty of beauty at Cypress Point.  Unfortunately for me, it is not enhanced by the work of MacKenzie on the 15th hole.  He went overboard.  That is my opinion.  It is not the universal truth.  It is my truth.  You do not have enough consideration to allow me my thoughts.  MacKenzie was not infallible and he proves it around many a green.

[Tom Dunne]

The 11th at Shinnecock is 158 from the back tees, 150 from the regular. But it's uphill, so I too have trouble thinking of it as a short par-3. Awesome hole, though.

I think you've got to throw in the 11th at Pacific Dunes as at least an honorable mention in this category. I love the way the tee is somewhat sheltered from the wind, but you can so clearly see the flag whipping this way and that. It's off the charts in terms of scenic memorability and it's got a terrific little green.

The 8th at Ballybunion Old doesn't seem to get discussed much, but I think that's a tremendous short hole--lots of ways to play it, too.

[mark chalfant]

Shoreacres   11     125y

Pasatiempo   15     141y

Longmeadow (Ross)  16     132y

Shorehaven, Ct.  15    139  downhill

Troy  (Travis)     2      137y

[Kalen Braley]

This thread made me dig out my copy of the CPC by Geoff S.

After looking at the current photo that was posted earlier in this thread and looking at the photos that were taken not long after its completion, I think the original version layed on the land in a much more natural manner...

The biggest difference I noticed was the jagged edges of the bunkers as they were originally created.  They seemed to eat into the little hillocks better and disguise/minimalize the hillocks. I'm just speculating, but I would guess MacK did this to add a 3-D dimension to the bunkering to make them more visually prominent from the tee as opposed to if they had been placed downward into the earth they could have appeared more 2-D in nature.

The current rounded off version of the bunkers seem to accentuate the small hills and bring them to the forefront instead of obscuring them in the background like the old pictures.  Granted this could be the black and white nature of the old photos compared to the color pics.

I also noticed that the bunker which is set in hill to the far right.  In the old photo, the grass on this hill was left alone to grow up high and provides a better transition into the adjacent wild landscape, whereas in the current configuration this appears as maintained mowed rough.

I need to get my scanner fired up and get some of these pics posted.  On a side note, the 18th looks to play a lot more open, especially on the left side of the fairway as compared to current photos I've seen of the hole.

[Evan_Smith]

Pine Needles #3
Teeth of the Dog #5

Jesse-I've played the hole quite a few times and I don't see why everybody seems to love it so much.  I prefer the all the other par 3's on the course to this one.  Yes, I know they're not short 3's, but I just don't see it with this hole.  There are 10 better short 3's in Pinehurst, yet alone the rest of the world.  It's your opinion so I appreciate that, I just wanted to give mine.

My fav. par 3 that I've played is the 6th at Portstewart.  At 143 from the tips I think it falls into the category (just over 130 from the men's tees).  The reasons I love the hole is that it is very challenging, but still fair.  I think #7 at RCD is just about impossible to keep one on the green in anything over a 20mph wind (unless it's in your face).  It's a great hole, just not the best because it's nearly unfair!  
You tee off from a dune across a bit of a drop to the top of another dune where the green is basically on the same level as the tee box.  The green falls away quite severely on every side except the right where there is the small dune.  The green is fair because it's gently sloping, but still not easy, which is a good design aspect because if was undulating it would make it unfair.  If you miss the green, you still have a chance for recovery.  How good of a chance depends on where your miss is.  If you miss it short and right you could have a shot back up the hill from about 30 feet below the surface of the green.  This photo doesn't show the severity of the drop off.  It also looks like there is a dune directly behind the green on the left.  That is about 30 yards behind the green.  If the green were a clock face with 6 o'clock being between the bunkers and on line with the flag, the only area that doesn't fall drastically away would be from 1 o'clock to about 3:30 where the dune is.  Throw in some wind and this is so much fun to try and manufacture a shot to hit the green.  


The 12th at Portstewart is amazing too, but at 167 yds from the tips (albeit very downhill) may be too long to be considered.  What a view though!!

[Mark_F]

Wayne,

Thanks for the reply and pics.

The black and white is outstanding. A real heart in the mouth hole.

We always consider the 15th at Kingston Heath one of the best uphill par threes in the world. Be interested in anyone who has played both to compare.

[Joe Hancock]

I don't have an answer, other than to say that it has to exist somewhere in the UK, where the ground is "right" enough to have multiple options on a shorty.

Imagine...a sub 130 par three where the best option is on the ground......not here in America, no sir....

Joe

[Paul_Turner]

The reason why the 5th at Royal Worlington (160yds) is the best is that it can be played well by a weak player but there is still lots of danger (you can play it with your putter).   A lot of the other candidates require a lofted shot over hazards.  No forced carry at RW&N's 5th (you can play it with your putter).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

I don't think I'd classify # 11 at Shinnecock as a "Short" par 3.

I've always viewed it as a medium length par 3.. which can play longer than the yardage due to its uphill nature.

# 6 at NGLA has to be amongst the best.

# 11 at Hidden Creek is pretty good.

# 18 at Preakness Hills when it played between 100 and 120
       downhill was terrific.  It was over water, right up to the
       green, with a two tiered green, with a horseshoe bunker
       surrounding the green.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I consider the 11th at SHGC to be a short par 3.  I hit 9 iron or 8 iron (older lofts).  That meets my standard for a short par 3.  It certainly plays shorter today than it ever has given modern technology and the elevated tee.  I suppose the borderline for short and medium length par 3s varies somewhat from person to person.  I definitely include it as a short par 3.

I like your inclusion of the 6th at NGLA and the 11th at Hidden Creek in any discussion of great short par 3s.  The 9th and 15th holes at Pocantico Hills, the 13th at Merion East, the 8th at Manufacturers, the 16th at Rolling Green, the 11th at TCC of Pepper Pike and the 4th at Gulph Mills are all wonderful short par 3s as well.

[mark chalfant]

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 !!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()