Would the 17th at CPC be a vastly better hole if

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:

Your fannied one-iron to the right is the shot I have trumpeted so often as adding to the coolness of the hole... trying to do this intentionally is one of the more unique shots in golf - a shorter shot that is more risky than a longer one, and gives a short shot in.. that is hugging the inside of a dogleg against a hazard.

As for putting in a bunker - see my comments to Sean.  I just do not see that as an improvement.  To make it a real choice off the tee - ie inspire the same sort of fear -it would need to be so penal as to require a chip out - the same thing you see as bad (and is bad).

Nope, I think the temptation and possibilities are perfect as is - as well as being very unique.  

It's a great hole as is.

TH

ps to Brent - oh yes, wind effects everything on the hole - another part of its coolness.
pss -why in god's name are we discussing this AGAIN?  Has the forum really become that boring?  OK, maybe don't answer that.

[Sean_A]

"Huck - hold your Cal-i-for-ni-a Mustangs right there pardna.   My big issue with the trees is that they can lead to the most boring shot in golf - the chip out or the lob over the top.  In the case of the 17th, it appears that this could often be the case and for a shot that is not much off line - no?  I say offline, but the fairway doesn't look huge and the trees look to be cutting that width dramatically down.  "
No, you don't have this correct either.  Which of course is understandable given you've never seen the hole in person.  I'd admonish you about perhaps trusting those of us who have, but that would be classless.

 

Why you cheeky tin horn!  I oughta send Joey Knuckles yer way except for he is taking care of job for me out in Budapest.  

You could be right about the sand, but the bunker(s) don't have to be so severe tat one can't think of having a go.  Afterall, there is trouble around that green - no?

Sure, there is a first time for everything, but I really don't care for trees used in this way.  I reckon I would be happier about them if there was a clear play underneath making the actual obstruction of the tree greatly reduced down to shot-making rather chipping sideways.

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

"Sure, there is a first time for everything, but I really don't care for trees used in this way.  I reckon I would be happier about them if there was a clear play underneath making the actual obstruction of the tree greatly reduced down to shot-making rather chipping sideways."

As I said before, it tends to work out that way, Sean.  The only death on the hole is if one gets RIGHT behind a tree, or hits it in the copse.  You know that is what is to be avoided.  If you fail to avoid it, the penalty is correct.  Outside of that, oh man.. I haven't played the course much but I have seen more creative shot-making near those trees than darn near anywhere else I can think of.

One note - it would be best to keep the trees trimmed.. over time they can block TOO much.  But I do believe the club takes care of that.

TH

[Bill_McBride]

It's pretty funny.  I don't mind the trees on #17 at all but I HATE the trees in the fairway on #18.

Paging Dr. Katz! 

[Tom Huckaby]

It's pretty funny.  I don't mind the trees on #17 at all but I HATE the trees in the fairway on #18.

Paging Dr. Katz! 

Dr. Katz not necessary, Bill.

The trees in 18 block the tee shot, and really can't be avoided.  The trees on 17 most definitely can be.

TH

[Scott Warren]

I would like to see a shop job with bunkers...  Why not use a bunker complex to achieve the double fairway effect (which lets face it is all the trees really do other than get in the way)?

Not a great job cos I am at work and only have paint, no PS, but:

[Mike Hendren]

Scott, a few more iterations, please:

1.  Of the four bunkers, remove the right hand one closest to the ocean.
2.  Remove two bunkers, leaving only the two at 6 and 9 o'clock.
3.  Remove three bunkers, leaving the single bunker at 9 o'clock.
4.  Remove two bunkers, leaving the two at 9 and 12 o'clock.

Thanks.

Mike

[Jordan Wall]

Pat,

Having never played the hole, and thus not being able to specifically answer the question, I would like to throw out that the hole is completely original in the sense that it is the only true cape hole (at least of which I am aware) with such a hazard.

Taking out the trees would make the hole unoriginal.

Surely it would not deteriorate from the spectacular setting and hole, but why change something pure and original, done by the hand of one of the most famous architects ever?

Until I have played the hole, I cannot say it is strategically better with or without the trees.

Yet, I think the holes originality, not to mention the beauty of the cypress trees rarely found in other parts of the world, would only add to the holes greatness and uniqueness, not the opposite.

Cheers,
Jordan

[Dave_Miller]

the trees were removed ?

Would it be a true Cape hole for the modern day bombers ?

Pat:
The hole is fine as is.  As a matter of fact I like it the way it is.  Why do we need to keep changing things to accomodate "modern day bombers"? I don't think doing this really adds anything to the hole.
Best
Dave

[Pete Lavallee]

Dave,

One of the great things about CPC is that haven't made a single attempt to accomadate bombers. No new tees, no desperate attempt to make the card add up to 7000 yards. For that alone they should be commended!

Funny, when the CBS announcers are recalling at the PB Tournament what a great time they had at CPC earlier in the week, no one mentions that the course didn't measure up or that they didn't have anything but a great time out there.

[Ian_L]

Having never seen the hole, I'm likely dead wrong about this, but from pictures it looks to me that if you can't hit the ball 200+ yards, there's basically no way at having a shot at this green in two.  Is this true?

To get a better feel for the hole, what are my options as a 240-250 yard hitter off this tee? It looks like all I can do is hit it down the left.

[Tom Huckaby]

Having never seen the hole, I'm likely dead wrong about this, but from pictures it looks to me that if you can't hit the ball 200+ yards, there's basically no way at having a shot at this green in two.  Is this true?

To get a better feel for the hole, what are my options as a 240-250 yard hitter off this tee? It looks like all I can do is hit it down the left.

Of course it depends on what tees you play.

I believe it's 390 from the back tees.  I know this - I am a 240-250 hitter also, and with a helping wind or no wind, I can get left enough and far enough to have a clear shot.  Into the wind, no way.  But then again the shot tends to stay back far enough from the trees in that case.  The prevailing wind would be helping on this hole in any case (the same one quartering from the right and against on 16).

As for a 200 hitter getting there in two shots, of course it can be done... he is just better off hugging the right, and taking the second right of the trees... that is unless he can hit a very high 175 shot for his second..that would be pretty far back from the trees so of course it could be done... just not by your typical 200 hitter (who most likely can't hit it both high and far).

[Brent Hutto]

Ian,

I drive the ball a bit over 200 yards typically but only 190 or so in the air. And the wind was not favorable the day I played there. You're correct, just play leftish and hit a shot to the left of the trees and well short of the green. I left myself a little <100 yard shot which I tried to bumble onto the green to a very front hole location. There is a tiny bit of a roll in the fairway just short of the green that will prevent such a shot (should have asked the caddie for advice before hitting it). So I was front fringe in three, missed a short putt for five and tapped in for double. Pity.

If you could actually hit it 230 or so, depending on the effect of the day's breeze of course, there would be the option of working a long shot around the trees somehow but certainly not a high-percentage shot for a double-digit handicapper by any means.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent - as you indicate, turn the wind around (more normal - you must have played 16 downwind) and you have to believe you could have gotten there in two shots, no?  Again it wouldn't be easy, but it would be possible - you either hug the right on the tee shot (shortening the hole but making for a very tough second, all carry over ocean) - or go left, and then hit one either over or around the trees.

Anyway, this hole isn't meant to be easy - not for anyone.

Only Mucci wants to make it such.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Tom,

I'm trying to remember the wind direction. My memory is of more like a direct crosswind for the tee shot at seventeen but definitely not helping. Wasn't more than a zephyr all morning anyway, maybe 8-10mph tops (though after lunch it was howling 25-30mph when we played the course next door, go figure). But even with a very short and very left tee shot it was definitely decision time on the second shot, not truly out of range as much as requiring good aim and judgement of how the shot would shape itself. I seem to recall being inside 200 yards but not by much and deciding that the prudent play was 9-iron, 9-iron and just take the trees, ocean, breeze and shot shape out of the equation. And if I'd drawn a middle or back hole that would certainly have been a wise strategy.

Frankly I was just trying to get back to bogey golf after a disastrous stretch on the 12th-14th and honestly was not even thinking par or birdie. Absent a strong wind and with the advice and ball-tracking skills of the caddie corps that is a wonderful course for someone who wants to shoot for pars if possible on the shorter holes and try for a routine bogey on the half-dozen or longer/tougher ones. I'd put seventeen in the latter category even given its medium length.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent - gotcha, well said, perfectly reasonable.

I was just responding to Ian's question if it was IMPOSSIBLE for such a player to get there in two shots.

Heck such player isn't going to reach many 390 holes in two!  And this one is more complicated.  But impossible?  I can't buy that.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

When were the bunkers removed ?

Scott Warren, you left out the left fairway bunkers, could you reinsert them.



[/quote]

[Scott Warren]

Scott Warren, you left out the left fairway bunkers, could you reinsert them.

Done.

[Tom Huckaby]

Pat - by requesting this, are you changing your question?

At first it was would it be a vastly better hole if:

the trees were removed ?

Would it be a true Cape hole for the modern day bombers ?

Are you now adding "and replaced by bunkers".... ?

Two totally different questions.  I still say NO for either... but let's get clear what you are asking before you start with the inevitable emerald responses.

[Scott Warren]

Can anyone answer my question posted previously asking how wide that avenue down the outside of the trees is?

[Tom Huckaby]

Can anyone answer my question posted previously asking how wide that avenue down the outside of the trees is?

Go on google earth and measure if you want this precise....

My guess is about 20 yards from tree edge to cliff edge, depending on where you measure.

It is NOT a very viable play - what is somewhat viable is staying farther back, hitting a right-handed cut with a 210 club or so... that leaves about 150 in, clear... if you hug the edge close enough.

[Kalen Braley]

I consulted with Google Earth and its even more daunting than that.

That strip of fairway is only anywhere from 11-18 yards wide between the trees and cliff edge.  And its gets even more narrow if you try to run it up even further past the trees.

However, if you can do this, its only a 110 yard shot or less into the green.

[Tom Huckaby]

I consulted with Google Earth and its even more daunting than that.

That strip of fairway is only anywhere from 11-18 yards wide between the trees and cliff edge.  And its gets even more narrow if you try to run it up even further past the trees.

However, if you can do this, its only a 110 yard shot or less into the green.

Thanks.  Just note getting it to 110 remains a foolish play - that is it's surely not worth the risk.

The play I am talking about is hugging the coast way back of that.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

I consulted with Google Earth and its even more daunting than that.

That strip of fairway is only anywhere from 11-18 yards wide between the trees and cliff edge.  And its gets even more narrow if you try to run it up even further past the trees.

However, if you can do this, its only a 110 yard shot or less into the green.

Thanks.  Just note getting it to 110 remains a foolish play - that is it's surely not worth the risk.

The play I am talking about is hugging the coast way back of that.

TH

Ahh yes, good advice indeed.

I think the best play is for us get a real swing like the silver fox and just drive it left of the trees for a simple wedge in on a great angle and line!!   

[Scott Warren]

Scott, a few more iterations, please:

1.  Of the four bunkers, remove the right hand one closest to the ocean.
2.  Remove two bunkers, leaving only the two at 6 and 9 o'clock.

Here they are:

#1


#2