[Jed Peters]

I was out a couple of months ago at Cypress and noticed a significant restoration going on there on number 17. Apparently the original hole had bunkers between the sea and the trees on the right fairway "sliver" that kept balls from going into the trees, and narrowing up the landing area for people trying to "cut off" the pseudo-dogleg.









As you can see, it looks like two bunkers will be placed in that area around the tree(s) in the middle of the fairway, jutting out to the second bunker further up the right side.

Anyone trying to shoot this "gap" now has to contend with quite the golf shot!

[Mike Hendren]

What sayeth the "No Double Hazards" crowd?  Perhaps a brain cramp for the Good Doctor?

Bogey

[Ben Jarvis]

Thanks for posting Jed.

That third photo shows almost the exact shot I was forced to play back in July, albeit from the first cut rough. It was a tough shot, requiring a low draw to a pin on the right side of the green. This shot is obviously going to be made tougher with the re-introduction of sand.

Geoff Shackelfords book, Alister MacKenzie's Cypress Point Club, has some wonderful images of the "old" 17th with the bunkering at the base of cypress'.

[Tim Gavrich]

Was the sea-side fairway too wide before?  The pictures I'd seen of the hole before did not suggest so.

There may have been bunkers there originally, but I'm sure the cypresses were much less bulky then too, no?

Just curious more than anything.  The people who get to build those bunkers must love the opportunity to be there.  Heck, I'd work for nothing in order to enjoy the scenery while I dug.

[jeffwarne]

Was the sea-side fairway too wide before?  The pictures I'd seen of the hole before did not suggest so.

There may have been bunkers there originally, but I'm sure the cypresses were much less bulky then too, no?

Just curious more than anything.  The people who get to build those bunkers must love the opportunity to be there.  Heck, I'd work for nothing in order to enjoy the scenery while I dug.

whether this is a good,a  great, or a bad thing, I leave to the experts who have played there and are experts aon architecture.

What it does make me think though is that when one has made a decision to restore, he's assumimg that innovation and and improvement , and sometimes common sense were not possible compared to the product on the date chosen to restore to.
I find it hard to believe that most great courses weren't/aren't better many years after opening than they are on opening day, although there are  examples of the opposite that are rightfully restored.

[Jed Peters]

I think that the addition of the "eye focusing" bunkers (they appear right next to the ocean, and the grassed-in area can't be more than 20 paces wide) will force more people "left" of the trees in the middle, bringing back in the architectural integrity of the hole.

I myself, the first time I played it--went up the left side and had a flip wedge.

This time, playing left, I had a doozy of an 8 iron--up over the trees to a green that slopes from front to rear.

The shot, while not that "hard" (it wasn't a 3 iron to a small tabletop green, or a forced hazard or anything) really made me gulp in my throat.

I think the bunkers will definitely pull you away from the right side, and keep you even more focused on going left.

[Joel_Stewart]

I played there recently and the member said that after years of discussion they are restoring some bunkers around the trees.

They have always been interested but felt that if they restored the bunkers the trees would become unstable.   Now they don"t?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Jed, you must be long. that is a fine drive to have a flip wedge. I do not remember seeing pictures of those traps on the right. The one by the tree appears very close to it as well. I guess that will come out in a few posts.

[Kalen Braley]

I've got Shacklefords CPC in front of me and the photos of 17 show bunkers practically surrounding those trees in the middle of 17 fairway.  The big difference is, the trees back then are far smaller than they are now.  It doesn't appear it was anywhere near as difficult to go over them as it is now.

[Wade Schueneman]

If the finish work is right, couldn't this be a visual masterpiece ala the greenside bunkers on 17 at RM West?  Am I wrong to be excited about this project?

[Mike Hendren]

I've got Shacklefords CPC in front of me and the photos of 17 show bunkers practically surrounding those trees in the middle of 17 fairway.  The big difference is, the trees back then are far smaller than they are now.  It doesn't appear it was anywhere near as difficult to go over them as it is now.

Kalen, I don't have my copy  handy but were the trees at the corner of the 18th also littered with bunkers?

Bogey

[Will Lozier]

I think that the addition of the "eye focusing" bunkers (they appear right next to the ocean, and the grassed-in area can't be more than 20 paces wide) will force more people "left" of the trees in the middle, bringing back in the architectural integrity of the hole.

I myself, the first time I played it--went up the left side and had a flip wedge.

This time, playing left, I had a doozy of an 8 iron--up over the trees to a green that slopes from front to rear.

The shot, while not that "hard" (it wasn't a 3 iron to a small tabletop green, or a forced hazard or anything) really made me gulp in my throat.

I think the bunkers will definitely pull you away from the right side, and keep you even more focused on going left.

Jed,

I don't remember #17 green sloping away from any approach??  I've played it twice and my recollection is that is actually slopes towards the front.

Cheers

[Mike Hendren]

Speaking of the 17th, I seem to recall an account of Nicklaus driving the 17th green back in the sixties.  Can anyone verify?

Bogey

[Kalen Braley]

I've got Shacklefords CPC in front of me and the photos of 17 show bunkers practically surrounding those trees in the middle of 17 fairway.  The big difference is, the trees back then are far smaller than they are now.  It doesn't appear it was anywhere near as difficult to go over them as it is now.

Kalen, I don't have my copy  handy but were the trees at the corner of the 18th also littered with bunkers?

Bogey

Bogey,

You're absolutely correct...the entire hole had numerous bunkers both left and right which are all gone now.  Based on what I can tell from current pictures, only the greenside bunkers remain.

[Brent Hutto]

I don't remember #17 green sloping away from any approach??  I've played it twice and my recollection is that is actually slopes towards the front.

My memory (having played the hole just once) is the main body of the green has a slight slope upward from middle to back. But the very front edge of the green does not slope up and there's a slight rise immediately in front of the green that will propel a shot forward quite noticeably. If my recollection is correct, perhaps from the fairway it looks like the ball is reacting to green sloped away when in reality the shot landed just a bit short and encountered that subtle feature.

I believe it's both a dip and a rise making that a confounding green to try and bounce the ball on to (as one might when playing a long approach to a front hole location).

[Jed Peters]

Jed, you must be long. that is a fine drive to have a flip wedge. I do not remember seeing pictures of those traps on the right. The one by the tree appears very close to it as well. I guess that will come out in a few posts.

I meant up the right side...and the drive was downwind.

What I'm leaving out that my 70 yard lob wedge was hit fat, only going 60 yards, and barely clearing the sea wall into the bunker. ha!

[Jed Peters]

I don't remember #17 green sloping away from any approach??  I've played it twice and my recollection is that is actually slopes towards the front.

My memory (having played the hole just once) is the main body of the green has a slight slope upward from middle to back. But the very front edge of the green does not slope up and there's a slight rise immediately in front of the green that will propel a shot forward quite noticeably. If my recollection is correct, perhaps from the fairway it looks like the ball is reacting to green sloped away when in reality the shot landed just a bit short and encountered that subtle feature.

I believe it's both a dip and a rise making that a confounding green to try and bounce the ball on to (as one might when playing a long approach to a front hole location).

I was on the middle of the green, putting UPHILL to a front pin just eight weeks ago.

So if that doesn't go front front to back, I dunno what does?

[Rick Shefchik]

Count me as part of the "no double hazards" crowd -- and count me against these bunkers. When the trees were much smaller, they probably made some sense, but trees grow, and a time comes when you have to decide whether you want one impediment or the other -- but not both.

Besides, that's a crazy narrow slot of fairway to the right of those trees. If you can hit it, you deserve a reward.

[John Kavanaugh]

Trees are not a hazard.

[Anthony Gray]

Trees are not a hazard.

  Yes they are.

[Jon Wiggett]

How resilient are this species of trees to having their roots dug up? Here in the UK the ESA would be having kittens if you proposed such an operation with most types of trees.

Jon

[Lynn_Shackelford]

I've got Shacklefords CPC in front of me and the photos of 17 show bunkers practically surrounding those trees in the middle of 17 fairway.  The big difference is, the trees back then are far smaller than they are now.  It doesn't appear it was anywhere near as difficult to go over them as it is now.

Kalen, I don't have my copy  handy but were the trees at the corner of the 18th also littered with bunkers?

Bogey

Shame on you, I do have my copy handy.  Some thoughts.

Yes, there is one big bunker on the right of 18 at the corner in and out of the trees.  This leads me to believe Geoff's caption about the bunkers on 17 may also apply to the ones on 18.

"The bunkers underneath the Cypress trees were designed for directional and aesthetic purpose, but are often mistakenly thought to have been placed to merely punish."

Perhaps the Good Doctor thought the trees might not survive and thus the bunkers would be needed to enhance the challenge of the tee shot.  Secondly unlike some, including me, I don't think the Good Doctor was opposed to "lighthouse bunkers."

Today's trees appear to be about twice the size as those when the course first opened?

[Adam Clayman]

Those types of Cypress tress grow very slowly. They also get shaped by the wind, which would keep their height in check. While's it's going to be 12 years, next month, the trees were easily carried by a guy with a torn ligament, in his left hand.
 Most of the bombers played right of them anyway.

[Lou_Duran]

Double jeopardy?  Eye candy?  And here I thought that Dr. MacKenzie was immune to all the affectations of modern gca.

I understand that the right side of the double fairway has eroded somewhat over the years by Mother Nature, but even in the few years after completion, was that really an attractive option?  I suspect that the skill to hit a drive down the "safe" left side with a long iron/hybrid wood to a driver is considerably less than finding the sliver on the right.  Or maybe the right side option was really a "gift" from the Master to those who pop it foul with a driver and find themselves with a relatively doable recovery.

As I sit here on a gloomy day in north Texas, I must confess to be extremely envious of that guy, Jed Peters.  Why, instead, couldn't he have posted something about hail and sleet at Bandon Dunes and the historic, alternative use of a well-constructed bunker?     

[Tim Nugent]

I wonder if this isn't some sort of proactive work in case the trees die.  I can't help but think of #18 at PB.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()