CPC 16. Dont try this at Home.

[Dan Kelly]

I doubt that CPC will return to the rota at the A.T.&T.

Bob --

I certainly hope you're not suggesting is Patrick is speaking from something other than a FACTual basis!  

[George Pazin]

Shivas -

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away we had a discussion regarding this on this site. I believe Tom Paul even debated the USGA at length over this, seeking to give the player with honors with option. I think they felt the player had the responsibility to play first, or something to that effect. He'd certainly be able to tell you better.

Anyone opting to play first against me should have his head checked. I lead the world in penalties off tee shots.

[DMoriarty]

I fail to see this leap. Just because most golfers don't play for serious stakes & view opportunities like this as once in a lifetime doesn't mean that the option isn't there. I'd bet if the Crosby were still played there & the conditions & circumstances were right, we'd see more than a few layups.

George, I may not have been clear in my previous post, or perhaps I misunderstood yours. I thought when you said

Speaking as someone who generally accepts foolish challenges on the golf course

you were expanding beyond just "once in a lifetime opportunities" and were talking about a more general pattern of behavior.  That's really what I am getting at.  A large number of golfers play this way whether they are at Cypress or not.

[Mike Hendren]

chipoat,

Why should Shivas care if Tom Paul takes the gas.  I thought ANGC was a goat ranch

Regards,

Mike

[Doug Siebert]

Do we play for score or do we derive other satisfactions from the game?  For me, I enjoy playing a game where for one shot or one hole (or rarely, a string of holes) I can produce a result comparable to that which could only be done by the best in the world (or not even, like when I played the last three at Carnoustie in -2 when the wind was up -- though granted while 16 was full length, 17 and 18 weren't at Open length, but I can't do anything about that)

So I'm not thinking about go/no go decisions in terms of what is most likely to result in the lowest score for me.  Let's be honest, if we tried for lowest score and cared about nothing else, how many of us would permanently consign our drivers to the garage?

[DMoriarty]

Generally, I've never bought into the notion that, among players who make mistakes fairly regularly, the first player has the advantage.  I think that's a lot of malarkey.  I've won a TON of hole by watching my competitor hit one into never never land and put the driver back in my bag or played safe.  that happens a helluva lot more often than winning a hole by putting pressure on the opponent by going first.  

On 16 in particular, I'd want to go second every time.  

I'd say it's about a 4-1 ratio that you win the hole by going second over going first.  

Shivas, I agree, but only because of the mindset I am talking about.  I'd describe this thought process a little different though:  

"Both of us usually take unnecessary and irrational risks.  So if he goes first, there is a good chance he will eliminate himself from the hole by making a bonehead play (just like I would if I went first.)  Maybe, just maybe, if he is out of the hole I will be able to talk myself into doing the smart thing for a change, and skate to an easy win."

But if the first player is reasonably judging his abilities, and making decisions accordingly, I'd rather go first, or else my opponent will keep himself in the hole most of the time, and put all the pressure on my shoulders.  

[Mike Benham]

On 16 in particular, I'd want to go second every time.  

Again, another point as to why it is a great hole in match play in that the hole effects the players strategy even before he gets to the hole  ...

So Shivas, would you lose 15 on purpose (or halve it assuming you did not have honors) so that you would go second on 16?

[Dan Kelly]

Give this some thought -- the golf course and the bedroom just might be the only two places in your life that you get to abandon reason and judgment and decisionmaking and just have fun with little or no conscequence (OK, well maybe not the bedoom).

Now there's one of the great Freudian tyops.

[George Pazin]

DaveM -

You're right, I spoke more generally in my first post, while referring to CPC #16.

However, the point remains the same: Just because most mediocre golfers choose to accept many challenges for whatever reason doesn't mean that the option is not there for those who choose to play a more strategic game.

My home course features a very difficult par 3 (to me) as the 15th. It about 210, all carry over a valley that you can play from. There are woods along the left side of the hole and plenty of room to bail out to the right. The green slopes pretty strongly back to fron, so long is no bargain.

Every time I've played this hole, there has been nothing on the line, so I pull out the appropriate club for me (generally 3-6 iron, depending on wind) & try to hit it on the green, short of the hole location. If I were playing with something real on the line, I would definitely favor the right a lot more and probably underclub as well. Heck, the way I hook long & mid irons under pressure, I'd probably hit a 7 right & short.

Nobody plays the hole this way, but the option is still there. That's my point. That's why I fail to see your leap of "No one does it, so it diminishes the game."

[Steve Lapper]

IMHO...

  One of the greatest "old" no layup choice holes would be 16 at Royal County Down...One might lay up with a wedge or 9 iron, but 276/265/256 downhill makes any player emboldened. Trouble, like anywhere else, abounds..but reward is quite available, even for a slightly short shot.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Bob Huntley,

What supporting information do you have that creates your doubt ?

[DMoriarty]

Nobody plays the hole this way, but the option is still there. That's my point. That's why I fail to see your leap of "No one does it, so it diminishes the game."

George, I am not so much concerned with the choices individual golfers make (or don't make), but I am concerned about what kind of courses will be built in the future, and what we might do to the courses that already exist.  

Why should architects build alternate routes if no one is using them?  Why shouldn't existing courses narrow if everyone is playing the same line anyways?  Wouldn't it be prudent to just build what the masses want-- visceral thrills on courses requiring very little thought?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Shivas,
I want the honor and I'm hitting my shot with no thought about what you might do. If I'm second, then I have to react to what you did, which means I have to think, which means I'm probably doomed unless you splash one. Think about it, if I go first and I'm one up, or down, and I knock it on, my opponent has to go for it, even if he'd rather lay up. With the honor you dictate what happens and thus your in control, especially at a hole like CP 16.

[CHrisB]

For those who have played it:
Just how difficult of a shot is the layup at #16 CPC?  How far of a shot is it, and how deep and wide is the target area?  Is it a tough shot in it's own right?  And from there how far is the pitch to the green?

[DMoriarty]

For those who have played it:
Just how difficult of a shot is the layup at #16 CPC?  How far of a shot is it, and how deep and wide is the target area?  Is it a tough shot in it's own right?  And from there how far is the pitch to the green?

ChrisB,  It is still a forced carry, but not nearly as difficult as going at the green.  I hit a 6 iron well left then a punched 9 iron into a very stiff quartering wind.  The further left you go the shorter the carry and the more depth you have.  One thing that doesnt show up well in the pictures is how narrow and swaled the neck is just left of the green-- it is very easy to go into the ocean/beach long and left of the green, so trying to lay up too close to the green is definitely risky.  

[George Pazin]

George, I am not so much concerned with the choices individual golfers make (or don't make), but I am concerned about what kind of courses will be built in the future, and what we might do to the courses that already exist.  

Why should architects build alternate routes if no one is using them?  Why shouldn't existing courses narrow if everyone is playing the same line anyways?  Wouldn't it be prudent to just build what the masses want-- visceral thrills on courses requiring very little thought?

Thought a lot about this since Friday evening. I think, in a sense, this is what separates the architects we love & cherish from the also rans.

It would be very simple, and perhaps even more lucrative from a time efficiency perspective, to do the easy things, cut corners, not think about providing layups for the very few who take advantage of them, not provide ground options since very few utilize them, use "template" holes rather than fit them to what nature has provided, etc. But the best architects are not judging their own work by how the majority of players choose to foolishly play (or even by the fickle raters out there:) ), but rather, look inside themselves to see if they got everything out of a site. It probably reassures them if even a handful recognize their "extra" effort, but in the end, they probably derive the most satisfaction from knowing they did a complete & thorough job.

In an even larger sense, this is what separates people who are successful in life from people who just get by.

P.S. I now see why you started this thread - you were just trying to justify your own decision to layup.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

George Pazin,

Let's be realistic,

Even we could have figured out how to put a hole on that section of property.

[Lou_Duran]

Except for those who play CPC on a regular basis or just can't make the carry, I have a hard time understanding how anyone would turn one of the world's most demanding par 3s into a relatively simple dogleg right par 4.  No matter if I was a couple of strokes under par or had a few beers on the line, if the green is reachable, I am going for it.  I tend to agree that there is a tendency to over-intellectualize the game.  Golf is not chess; it is largely physical and experential.  Lastly, we should be so lucky to have CPC 16 and ANGC to serve as models for new course construction.  Unfortunately for most of us, much too seldom do we have the opportunity to enjoy golf at this level.  Ultimately, economics will determine what gets built, and, in my opinion, the excitement of career shot at a hole like CPC #16 is what draws people to the game.      

[ChipOat]

Lou Duran:

In a match that matters, it drives me crazy to give back an advantage I've just been presented by my opponent.

CPC #16 or not, I'm playing the hole for 4.

[George Pazin]

George Pazin,

Let's be realistic,

Even we could have figured out how to put a hole on that section of property.

Strange that you would say that on a hole that is rumored to have come about as a result of an architect telling Ms. Hollins "It's a shame we can't use that."

Additionally, my limited experience is that many if not most modern architects have learned from the carry aspect of CPC #16, but not the layup option.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

George Pazin,

I don't know about the alleged history of the hole, but, it would seem to me that Ray Charles could have found it.

[JakaB]

I think that when the hole was built it was both too long and too difficult...It would have been a much better hole if the green was placed further from the ocean but the view and framing of the hole won out....a mistake of Faziotic proportions that technology has corrected.

[JakaB]

Shivas,

Exactly...now that would have been genius...and ballsey to boot.   No way in hell was that green placed next to the ocean so an easy bailout would be available...the hole was comprimised architecturally simply for the view.

[JWL]

Shivas

Where do you lay up at PB #8.  That has to be as hard as going for it, eh?
At least at CP #16, you can't say you didn't have a good lie! LOL  

[THuckaby2]

I don't mean to pick on David any more than we already have, but shivas go read reply #11.  He laid up on 8 at PB also.  I'm beginning to think that Dave is just one extremely unique cat who does get off on layup shots.  Of course I'm also wondering HOW he laid up "well short" of #8 PB, given there is really no room at all short of the green and intentionally hitting to that sliver on the left is, well, an interesting choice... but hey, I'm sure he can and will explain!

As for jakab's revision of 16 CPC, I don't see how that makes for a different view than what's there now... it would make for a shorter, but more difficult, shot (tiny green, death immediately short and long)... interesting thought anyway!

TH