Vertical center-of-the-fairway obstacles - Forcing choices on the golfer ...

[Jon Wiggett]

P.S.  As for the vertical center-of-the-fairway obstacles, in general, I have no problem with them. 

The controversial part about the 17th hole at Cypress Point is that a DOGLEG hole, with vertical obstacles past the landing area, makes it very difficult to judge where to drive the ball so you don't finish stymied behind one of them.  A more straightaway hole with trees in the way gives you clearer options and is less controversial.

If a modern architect built a replica of the 17th at Cypress with a lake in place of the ocean, he'd get slaughtered for it.

I also think that the green would better as a skyline green. Maybe Mackenzie just felt the hole was hard enough as it was (didn't there use to be fairway bunkers by the trees originaly?). Also getting critisised was one of the things that Mackenzie thought any good/interesting/challenging course should be, so maybe he didn't care about it.

[Bill Brightly]

TH

Having never played there   the picture seemed to indicate that the right side is a clear shot, so the trees tempt you to hit it near the water.

Thats why I parted ways with Chip. They are not stupid trees if they do that! And probably more effective than bunkers, right?

[Tom Huckaby]

TH

Having never played there   the picture seemed to indicate that the right side is a clear shot, so the trees tempt you to hit it near the water.

Thats why I parted ways with Chip. They are not stupid trees if they do that! And probably more effective than bunkers, right?

Bill - to be perfectly honest, these pictures sell the right side a bit too hard.  It's pretty darn tough to leave a tee shot to where one has a clear shot right of the trees.  I think it's cool, for all the reasons stated.  But I surely do not expect Chip to bend an inch.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have always thought that Mackenzie being a pioneer in upscale architecture felt the need to show his hand to justify his fee.  With a site as spectacular as Cypress his work could have easily been lost and forgotten without features obviously placed by man.  The man conquering nature theme was important in all aspects of architecture in his day.

[Mike Benham]

If a modern architect built a replica of the 17th at Cypress with a lake in place of the ocean, he'd get slaughtered for it.

Tom -

What about a blind second shot?  ... replace the trees in the middle of the fairway with an undulating fairway (big mounds) that leaves a blind shot ... the choice from the tee would essentially be the same but the actual playing of the approach shot would be easier.

[Mike Benham]

I have always wondered the same thing about those mounds behind #17.

Is there any change that the mounding behind 17 green was natural?  16 has the same feature ...

Perhaps Shack's book might lend a clue ...

[Sean_A]

I don't really care what Dr Mac's intentions were.  I detest the clump of trees in the centre of the fairway.  Man, I don't like trees on the wings with virtually no play underneath!  Plus, the clump isn't at all elegant like the stand alone trees further up.  Finally, the rough cut around the trees is ridiculous - far too neat n tidy.  My vote for the entire scenario is thumbs down.  Cut the clump back to one tree with the lower branches eliminated and I can get on board. 



Ciao

[Doug Sobieski]

Anybody have any thoughts on #9 at Blackwolf Run? I only played it once, but recall that the trees off the tee made for multiple routes to the green on a drivable par 4. Can someone elaborate on this hole a bit to refresh my memory?

[Adam Clayman]

Doug, The new #9 at BWR "Cathedral Spires" is a most confounding hole, and after multiple plays it can still be confounding. The best results come when the golfer just commits to their chosen line and distance of play. The safe route even leaves the better angle, but because of the blindness of the green and it's shape, that is debatable too. It's an interesting hole because of it's multi options and wide variance in scoring. I love how the look from the tee makes the golfer think for just a second about slinging one out over the river and go directly for the green. An option I'm sure is made much more tempting within the last ten years due to the improved ball and resulting freedom to waylay away.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

I think this is another of those cases where if you saw it in person, your opinion might change.  There is indeed room to hit under or even through that copse of trees... not much, for sure, but if you get right up against it, it can be done.  I have done it myself.  And in terms of it being "elegant", well... you seem to contradict yourself.  On the one hand you complain about the tidy rough cut, and on the other you want it to be more elegant?  Well which is it?  Do you want a tidy / elegant look or not?   But the main thing is when you see this in person, the last word you'd think of is elegant.  That copse of trees is a nasty scary place, as it should be; and the rough cut is a part of that.

My feeling is this is meant to be a hazard which inspires fear and forces choices on the tee - and to that end, it works very very well, and makes this hole unique - and to me, great - just as it is.

TH

[Sean_A]

Sean:

I think this is another of those cases where if you saw it in person, your opinion might change.  There is indeed room to hit under or even through that copse of trees... not much, for sure, but if you get right up against it, it can be done.  I have done it myself.  And in terms of it being "elegant", well... you seem to contradict yourself.  On the one hand you complain about the tidy rough cut, and on the other you want it to be more elegant?  Well which is it?  Do you want a tidy / elegant look or not?   But the main thing is when you see this in person, the last word you'd think of is elegant.  That copse of trees is a nasty scary place, as it should be; and the rough cut is a part of that.

My feeling is this is meant to be a hazard which inspires fear and forces choices on the tee - and to that end, it works very very well, and makes this hole unique - and to me, great - just as it is.

TH

AwsHuckster

Elegant in this context refers to the trees further up in the fairway.  Those trees look beautiful as stand alones.  Any real fine tree should be allowed to shine on its own.  I don't have much interest in playing through a copse of trees in the middle of the fairway surrounded by neatly cut rough.  It doesn't look good and imo, it wouldn't play good.  I can give the other trees a pass (though I am not terribly enthusiastic) only because one can almost always have a play at the green even if it requires a bit of fiddling and they are attractive.  Once these two essential criteria for any tree are removed I don't have much time for them.  I don't like this sort of low hanging trees in the wings, so why should I embrace them in the middle of a fairway?  Trees not properly maintained & placed are two of the worst crimes of modern golf and to commit the crimes in the middle of the fairway only makes me think its a bit goofy.  To each is own my friend.   

Ciao

[ChipOat]

JES II:  If I am behind a tree, it should NOT happen if I'm in the short grass.  If I'm not in the short grass and some part of a tree is in my way, then I got what I deserved.

Tom Huckaby: You are correct, as usual (except about #17 @ CPC) - I am not giving a single inch.

Sean Arble:  Now, YOU get it!

Tom Doak:  It is, of course, impossible to legitimately and knowledgeably argue with you about matters that don't involve pure preference (e.g. blonde/brunette, etc.) so I won't try.  But let me throw up another pet peeve for your consideration to make a comparison re: opinion without trying to hi-jack this thread.

To wit: I believe if a really, really carefully stroked putt could still roll off the green, then something's wrong with either 1) the green speed relative to the contours or 2) the hole location or 3) some of both.  I don't care if the putt in question is at National or Merion or Oakmont or the 18th green at Olympic.  At some point, we're talking windmills and clown's noses and I call those Stupid Putts.

[Bill Brightly]

Can I ask how far it is from the tee to the trees?

If you lay up short of the trees, how much do you have left to the pin?

Or does it vary greatly based on the angle?

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:  yes, to each his own for sure.  And I still think if you saw this in person you might think differently.  I too have no great love for copses of trees in the middle of fairways - but on this hole, it works - very very well.  The proof comes in the playing.

Chip:  I am right with you re Stupi Putts - they are a part of what I call "infinite putting"... when it's absurd it's absurd, no matter where it occurs.

Bill:  depends on the tee you play, obviously.  But from the back tee, it's about 260 to the trees.  I shot laid back to 220 leaves a decent shot over them, of about 160 or so.   And it can change based on angle - hug the coast and it's shorter.

TH

[Bill Brightly]

TH,

Thanks for the info. Based on your response, I have to say that these are only "Stupid Trees" if you are stupid enough, or aggressive enough, to bring them in to play. Do you agree?

That is a far cry from "center of the fairway" trees that are in a normal landing area.
 

[Kalen Braley]

Some Google measurements:

From the blue tees its approx 260 yards to reach the trees.  To drive past them on the left, it requires a shot of about 290 yards. 

To drive to the right of them requires about a 220 yard carry, 240 yards total to be in position where one only has 110 yards left to the middle of the green.  If one lays back 30 yards short of the trees, it leaves 135 yards to the middle of the green.  I'm not sure if 30 yards would be enough space to get up and over the trees though.

[Tom Huckaby]

TH,

Thanks for the info. Based on your response, I have to say that these are only "Stupid Trees" if you are stupid enough, or aggressive enough, to bring them in to play. Do you agree?

That is a far cry from "center of the fairway" trees that are in a normal landing area.
 

Fully agreed.  Said trees are only stupid if one allows them to be.  I have done so.  But it was surely my own stupid fault.  They are quite easy to avoid if one has the ego-check to do so....

TH

[JESII]

Chip,

If there has never been an instance when you thought some portion of the rough might be a better place to be than some portion of the fairway, I could understand your stance about the occassional "bunker in the sky"...but I cannot imagine anyone would prefer some section of fairway 100% of the time as opposed to even the kindest section of rough.

I think it is a mistake to view the fairway as a haven from obstruction.

[Sean_A]

TH,

Thanks for the info. Based on your response, I have to say that these are only "Stupid Trees" if you are stupid enough, or aggressive enough, to bring them in to play. Do you agree?

That is a far cry from "center of the fairway" trees that are in a normal landing area.
 

Fully agreed.  Said trees are only stupid if one allows them to be.  I have done so.  But it was surely my own stupid fault.  They are quite easy to avoid if one has the ego-check to do so....

TH

AwsHuckster

Come on, every tree can be avoided.  That isn't the determining factor if a tree(s) is well placed/used or not - is it?  If so, there is no such thing as a badly located tree.

In the end, I have to bow to your experience, but I remain highly doubtful of the merit of a gathering of trees in the middle of a fairway.  Unless of course, there is so much room to one side that there is effectively another full size fairway to one side or the other.  I don't have a problem with being left with a poor angle or longer shot due to taking the easy route. 

I spose my real problem is that I think the damn trees look ugly and I think a one tree could serve a better purpose (more easily allowing a low play) and is prettier.  Plus, hopefully one day, the wind will knock it down!

Ciao

[Brian Noser]

I must say I saw no way of going to the right on purpose unless you were trying to drive the green or get it up a little past the trees. A good hard drive up the left at the flag pole in this pic gives you perfect clear shot to the green of about 100 yards. Playing for a score you dont go right. if you just made double on the previous hole you can go right... as far as these being bunker no question this makes the hole much easier. to me it would just be come bomb away and hope for the best...



and if you lay up to short there is room to go under or through..

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

Well again, to each his own... but to me, that copse of trees is SUPPOSED to be a nasty place.  I don't want it to look pretty.  In fact I love the look as is... See the pic directly above, from closer?  To me that shows it as it is, and it's very very cool.

Nope, I can't see how ANYTHING - one tree, bunker, whatever - would play as great as this hole does exactly as it is now.  It's unique, it forces decisions, and it's damn fun.

So we shall have to agree to disagree.  We do that a lot.   

TH

[AndrewB]

Tom H, what if the trees were located approximately seven yards left of where they are and the left edge of the fairway extended a similar amount to the left?  To me that would make the option of going to the right more realistic without removing the thrill of pulling it off.  It would still be extremely narrow and something I'd only try when I felt confident or was tempted by the state of my match or just for fun.  Right now it's something I wouldn't ever consider trying because it's such a narrow area and the likelihood of pulling it off seems much less than the likelihood of not.  Plus, missing right means a penalty stroke and missing left likely means you're stymied by the trees.

I guess if I did give it a go I'd try to cut it in there so I'd cross the hazard line up in the fairway rather than off the tee.  Or, is it not played that way?

[ChipOat]

JES II

I admit to having a dogmatic, inflexible black/white point of view on this issue.

For the moment, put aside the variable that parts of some fairways could be converted to rough which would serve the purpose of "de-Stupidizing" a (very) few of the Stupid Trees that I have been forced to endure.

So, assuming that fairways are positioned "correctly" (that's worth a thread all by itself), I believe that it's very black and white: if you hit it in the fairway, you should have a better lie and a clear shot to 100% of the green (assuming a par 4) as opposed to the evils that should befall you if you DON'T hit it in the fairway.

Wherever one encounters a hole that presents more attractive options from the rough than anywhere in the fairway, that is a bad golf hole and should be changed so that ANYWHERE in the fairway (assuming a tee ball of "normal" distance) is more attractive a proposition than anywhere that is not in the fairway.

But, as Patrick Mucci would say, that's my BIAS.

[Sean_A]

JES II

I admit to having a dogmatic, inflexible black/white point of view on this issue.

For the moment, put aside the variable that parts of some fairways could be converted to rough which would serve the purpose of "de-Stupidizing" a (very) few of the Stupid Trees that I have been forced to endure.

So, assuming that fairways are positioned "correctly" (that's worth a thread all by itself), I believe that it's very black and white: if you hit it in the fairway, you should have a better lie and a clear shot to 100% of the green (assuming a par 4) as opposed to the evils that should befall you if you DON'T hit it in the fairway.

Wherever one encounters a hole that presents more attractive options from the rough than anywhere in the fairway, that is a bad golf hole and should be changed so that ANYWHERE in the fairway (assuming a tee ball of "normal" distance) is more attractive a proposition than anywhere that is not in the fairway.

But, as Patrick Mucci would say, that's my BIAS.

Chipoat

I tend to agree with you.  I philosophically disagree with the idea that a ball in the fairway would intentionally be in a worse spot than a ball in the rough.  It is not a rare occurrence by any means, though usually, angles rather than trees are the reason why.  However, I am willing to make exceptions, I am just not sure the above example is a good exception.  Lots of folks seem to like it, so there must be something there of merit.

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom H, what if the trees were located approximately seven yards left of where they are and the left edge of the fairway extended a similar amount to the left?  To me that would make the option of going to the right more realistic without removing the thrill of pulling it off.  It would still be extremely narrow and something I'd only try when I felt confident or was tempted by the state of my match or just for fun.  Right now it's something I wouldn't ever consider trying because it's such a narrow area and the likelihood of pulling it off seems much less than the likelihood of not.  Plus, missing right means a penalty stroke and missing left likely means you're stymied by the trees.

I guess if I did give it a go I'd try to cut it in there so I'd cross the hazard line up in the fairway rather than off the tee.  Or, is it not played that way?

Andrew - I say leave the trees where they are.  Moving them left makes both sides pretty undoable.  As it is, going left is not all that difficult.  I believe you are also missing what I mean by going right... hell no, it would be patently foolish to try to get it in that slot directly next to the trees - good lord would that require a shot.  No, by going right, what I mean is right and kinda laying back... that is, hit a 200-210 shot off the tee but make it hug the coastline (and yes, doing it with a cut is the wisest way).  It's a very thrilling shot to pull off, and a unique one in in that the shorter shot is riskier than a longer one (that is you can go straight and longer with nearly no risk).   If you do pull off the shot, then you can go right of the trees, over the ocean, for the 2nd shot - cutting the corner so to speak.

Chip and Sean - I find that dogma rarely works that well in golf.  But I understand you guys.  Too bad you'd play a great hole with a pissed off mood.