[Pete Lavallee]

Carnoustie isn't even close to as beautiful as CPC but in my opinion it is a far superior golf course. 

David,

You are certainly in a disticnt minority holding that opinion.

[Kalen Braley]

Pat Mucci,

Are you reading this?  Looks like you've found your long lost brother in Bartman!!   

As for Bartman, I'm with Pete, a teeny minority indeed.

[David Bartman]

I'm not so sure you are correct with those of us that break par regularly.  There is a reason they can have majors on one course and cannot have one on the other.  It has more to do with staging and space.

That being said, I agree, certainly with the types on this board, that I am in the vast minority, but my question to everyone who prefers CPC to another great golf course in Carnoustie is why?  What do you prefer about it.

Curious to read responses.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci,

Are you reading this?  Looks like you've found your long lost brother in Bartman!!   

I understand David's position, but don't quite agree when you consider the golf course specifics.

Take holes 15, 16, and 17 which use the Pacific and the inlets/coast as an integral part of the golf course.
Those holes are unique because of the integration of the coastline.
Those are three terrific holes that stategically depend on the uniqueness of the coastline.

So, while David asks what would happen if those holes were plunked down in Iowa, it's an invalid question because Iowa doesn't have that unique feature, which is so critical to design and play, to integrate into those holes.

As for Bartman, I'm with Pete, a teeny minority indeed.

[Rich Goodale]

Carnoustie isn't even close to as beautiful as CPC but in my opinion it is a far superior golf course. 

David,

You are certainly in a disticnt minority holding that opinion.

Add me to that minority, Pete, although I'd modify "far superior" to "superior."  Both courses are great, but Carnousite offers a wider variety of challenges, and more uncertainty due to its contours and conditioning.  You can (and often must) play the ground game at Carnoustie, but at Cypress it is all "bomb and gouge"--beautiful B&G to be sure, but very much an aerial experience.  IMHO, of course.

Rich

[Bill_McBride]

Carnoustie isn't even close to as beautiful as CPC but in my opinion it is a far superior golf course. 

David,

You are certainly in a disticnt minority holding that opinion.

Add me to that minority, Pete, although I'd modify "far superior" to "superior."  Both courses are great, but Carnousite offers a wider variety of challenges, and more uncertainty due to its contours and conditioning.  You can (and often must) play the ground game at Carnoustie, but at Cypress it is all "bomb and gouge"--beautiful B&G to be sure, but very much an aerial experience.  IMHO, of course.

Rich

That's a question of maintenance rather than design.  IIRC, you can run the ball onto almost every green at Cypress Point.  #9 back left not included!

[Tyler Kearns]

TK,

I think taking advantage of the natural terrain is an important attribute to consider when evaluation a golf courses architecture.  However, for me beauty has nothing to do with the architecture itself.   

Let me ask you this ... If 15-17 at CPC were just god awful holes, ( FWIW I think 15 and 16 are terrific ) you would still hear seals and see the ocean, does that make them good holes? 

To me it makes them terrible holes, located in a terrific environment.   
 

David,

I would agree, a wasted opportunity, but the setting would make them better than those same holes in the middle of Iowa.
Golf course architecture is more than just the golf features. Speaking of Cypress Point, the lengthy walk from No. 14 green to No. 15 tee through the cypress trees, hearing the crashing waves, creates great anticipation for what lies ahead, and adds to the overall golf experience. I think the whole journey represents golf architecture. A golf course that is un-walkable gets taken down a few notches in my opinion, because that detracts from the golf experience, even though eighteen good golf holes are presented.

TK

[Will Lozier]

I was a player and will always look at the golf course from a play-ability and fairness angle first and foremost.   For the average golfer, the hole really doesn't matter that much, they cannot play the hole properly as the GCA intended , and therefore the beauty should play a large part in their enjoyment.  However, when determining what the best golf courses are, why should natural setting have such a large impact on one's decision?   

Carnoustie isn't even close to as beautiful as CPC but in my opinion it is a far superior golf course. 

David,  

Please give your definitions of:

1) player
2) play-ability
3) fairness

Also, great holes offer options...so when you say "as the architect intended", isn't there more than one way?

Cheers

[Rich Goodale]

Carnoustie isn't even close to as beautiful as CPC but in my opinion it is a far superior golf course. 

David,

You are certainly in a disticnt minority holding that opinion.

Add me to that minority, Pete, although I'd modify "far superior" to "superior."  Both courses are great, but Carnousite offers a wider variety of challenges, and more uncertainty due to its contours and conditioning.  You can (and often must) play the ground game at Carnoustie, but at Cypress it is all "bomb and gouge"--beautiful B&G to be sure, but very much an aerial experience.  IMHO, of course.

Rich

That's a question of maintenance rather than design.  IIRC, you can run the ball onto almost every green at Cypress Point.  #9 back left not included!

Bill

Us oldies obviously think differently.  As for me, I can't think of one hole at CPC where the ground game is an intelligent option, regardless of maintenance.  The design just isn't there for that kind of golf. (and the climate (or even membership) for F&F maintenance).  Of course, maybe you were referring to your third or fourth shots.....

[Mike Benham]

As for me, I can't think of one hole at CPC where the ground game is an intelligent option, regardless of maintenance. 

The long approach to #2 ...

But you are right, there are not many options for the ground game but it is also hilly undulating course, with many elevated (naturally) greens while Carnoustie is flat as a pancake.

Is Carnoustie all fescue?

[Jed Peters]

The long approach to #2 ...

Maybe 13 as well....

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Rihc and others, I think Carnouste is a harder course by far. Yet, is it better, hmmm I think not. It is a links course with all the wonderful attributes you would find on a great links course. However few if any think it is the best or greatest links course. I defer to your beloved Royal Dornoch or TOC or Muirfield, or RSG, or..........By the by does Royal mean a royal had sex on the course or just urinated on it to give it a special status? I think Cypres has many ground game design features that conditioning by using too much water take away. The course is designed for a windy conditions with open fronts to most of the greens. 1,2,3,4,5,6,,8, 10,11,12,13,14,17,18.

[David Bartman]

OK, multiple replies

Will - Definitions

Player - Someone who regularly shoots around par ( I was a professional for 6 years and have played in numerous USGA events )
Play ability - Shot values, forced carries, placment of hazards and OB, design of hazards and OB, fairway widths, green complexes and how they are designed to receive the typical approach shot for a particular hole, risk/reward 
Fairness - This attribute isn't one that I see very often in modern design.  Often times a player is penalized for hitting a shot that is longer and straighter than someone who doesn't.  Take most modern day fairway bunkers, fairly flat with a lip at the end of them.  I really don't prefer to see that type of design.  I would much prefer a few pot bunkers , so that if you hit it in a bunker, its equal for everyone.  I also don't mind church pews.  I would love to sit down and pick the brain of a GCA to find out how they feel about this sort of thing when it comes to bunker design.  Slopes in Greens that don't allow a player to get a ball that is on the green to within 5 feet of an elementary pin position.  Especially on holes that require a longer shot into a green ( see play ability

Pat - From a play ability standpoint holes 15-17 at CPC , can be reproduced anywhere in the world, there will be no ocean but hazards can be placed in the exact same points in relation to tees and greens making the holes identical on paper.   

TK - your impression that the bad holes made better due to the scenery is just about as opposite my view as one can get.  While I agree that these holes would be more bearable because one would gravitate towards the beauty and away from the golf itself, I feel a that these holes would actually be made worse from a design standpoint because the GCA didn't take advantage of fantastic natural terrain that was present. 

[Bill_McBride]

Carnoustie isn't even close to as beautiful as CPC but in my opinion it is a far superior golf course. 

David,

You are certainly in a disticnt minority holding that opinion.

Add me to that minority, Pete, although I'd modify "far superior" to "superior."  Both courses are great, but Carnousite offers a wider variety of challenges, and more uncertainty due to its contours and conditioning.  You can (and often must) play the ground game at Carnoustie, but at Cypress it is all "bomb and gouge"--beautiful B&G to be sure, but very much an aerial experience.  IMHO, of course.

Rich

That's a question of maintenance rather than design.  IIRC, you can run the ball onto almost every green at Cypress Point.  #9 back left not included!

Bill

Us oldies obviously think differently.  As for me, I can't think of one hole at CPC where the ground game is an intelligent option, regardless of maintenance.  The design just isn't there for that kind of golf. (and the climate (or even membership) for F&F maintenance).  Of course, maybe you were referring to your third or fourth shots.....

You have outed me. 

[Bill_McBride]

Rihc and others, I think Carnouste is a harder course by far. Yet, is it better, hmmm I think not. It is a links course with all the wonderful attributes you would find on a great links course. However few if any think it is the best or greatest links course. I defer to your beloved Royal Dornoch or TOC or Muirfield, or RSG, or..........By the by does Royal mean a royal had sex on the course or just urinated on it to give it a special status? I think Cypres has many ground game design features that conditioning by using too much water take away. The course is designed for a windy conditions with open fronts to most of the greens. 1,2,3,4,5,6,,8, 10,11,12,13,14,17,18.

This is probably okay now that it comes from the LSU Tiger. 

[Kalen Braley]

Player - Someone who regularly shoots around par ( I was a professional for 6 years and have played in numerous USGA events )

David,

This is probably the biggest reason for so many crap courses in the last few decades.  Less than 2% of players who play the game can do this, yet courses are being built in mind with the 2% instead of everyone else like me, who at 15.3 basically represents the average player in the game.

Extra long tee boxes
Flat Greens for fairness
Predicatable yardages
Long par 3s, 4s, and 5s.

[David Bartman]

I completely disagree with your premise --- I think course should be built for the 2% in mind, and then provide enough tee boxes and at time different entry angles into greens so that everyone at every level can enjoy the shot values that are created.  Old courses trying to be more relevant  should mostly only be lengthening the back tees and not all the tees, most courses are not doing this and simply making the experience for the average golfer worse by making the mistake of assuming that every player is gaining a 20-30 yard advantage due to the new equipment , which is simply not the case.   New technology has really made it difficult to build a challenging golf course for the best players while providing an enjoyable experience for the average golfer such as yourself.  It has really increased the distance discrepancy in the two classes of golfers. 



I think many of the newest golf courses are garbage because they are really build to sell real estate or have to deal with environmental areas that really inhibit the architect from doing what he actually wants to do with the terrain and acreage he is given. 

Both of these factors have very little to do with what level golfer is playing the course. 

[ed_getka]

David,
    What other courses do you really like besides Carnoustie? I find your responses interesting and finding out which courses you prefer might help to understand your viewpoint. At this point I presume you like courses that are very challenging since you are a good golfer and feel it is your due to be rewarded for your superior ballstriking abilities. Do you enjoy quirky courses? Just curious.

[J_ Crisham]

OK, multiple replies

 
Pat - From a play ability standpoint holes 15-17 at CPC , can be reproduced anywhere in the world, there will be no ocean but hazards can be placed in the exact same points in relation to tees and greens making the holes identical on paper.   

David,   You may be able to build the same holes but you can not reproduce the effect the ocean plays on the shotmaking be it wind, fog, heavy damp air. I have seen a 10 degree difference while playing back on #5 from what we felt on#17 tee at CPC. You can't do that by building a course in Orlando. As far as Carnoustie, it may be a hell of a challenge but I could think of 30 courses in Ireland or Scotland that are as good or better. Must be a reason that CPC is consistently ranked in every magazine poll in the top 5 in the US. Carnoustie isn't even a top 5 in Scotland.

[Ben Jarvis]

OK, multiple replies

 
Pat - From a play ability standpoint holes 15-17 at CPC , can be reproduced anywhere in the world, there will be no ocean but hazards can be placed in the exact same points in relation to tees and greens making the holes identical on paper.   

Must be a reason that CPC is consistently ranked in every magazine poll in the top 5 in the US. Carnoustie isn't even a top 5 in Scotland.

Let's not undercut CPC here Jack. It's regularly in the top 2 to 3 in the world, let alone the US.

David, I assume you have played at Cypress on at least one occasion.

I'm yet to play Carnoustie and have played Cypress once. Until I've played Carnoustie, I reserve my judgement. Cypress though, is a phenomenal golf course on phenomenal land in a phenomenal environment. I think you know what my opinion on CPC is.. 

[Tom_Doak]

I completely disagree with your premise --- I think course should be built for the 2% in mind, and then provide enough tee boxes and at time different entry angles into greens so that everyone at every level can enjoy the shot values that are created.  Old courses trying to be more relevant  should mostly only be lengthening the back tees and not all the tees, most courses are not doing this and simply making the experience for the average golfer worse by making the mistake of assuming that every player is gaining a 20-30 yard advantage due to the new equipment , which is simply not the case.   New technology has really made it difficult to build a challenging golf course for the best players while providing an enjoyable experience for the average golfer such as yourself.  It has really increased the distance discrepancy in the two classes of golfers. 

I think many of the newest golf courses are garbage because they are really build to sell real estate or have to deal with environmental areas that really inhibit the architect from doing what he actually wants to do with the terrain and acreage he is given. 

Both of these factors have very little to do with what level golfer is playing the course. 

David:

You should leave out the next to last paragraph, as you really don't have much idea what you are speaking of there, as far as I know.

You seem to have a bunch of rules for yourself to apply, as to what makes a good golf course.  That's fine, if that's the way you want to do it.  I am fine with very good players trying to ignore the beauty of a course and just concentrate on the individual holes and golf shots, if they want to.  But, you shouldn't discount that those things matter to other golfers.

Also, you shouldn't hold the beauty of a golf course AGAINST it.  You said yourself that 15 and 16 at Cypress Point are great holes, so it's hard to see how others are overrating it because of its beauty.  Which holes, exactly, are they overrating on that basis?  It sounds like you must not like #17, since you omitted it.

I wouldn't say that Cypress Point has the best 18 holes on earth, and I certainly wouldn't say that it's the most demanding course for a scratch golfer such as yourself.  But are you saying that you wouldn't find a match against a good opponent at Cypress Point, as stimulating as a match at Carnoustie?  In other words, is it all about stroke play for you?

If that's not the case, then please tell us which holes at Cypress Point are inferior, in your view, to the duller parts of Carnoustie [I will throw out holes 7-8-9-11-12, to get started].

[Patrick_Mucci]

OK, multiple replies

Will - Definitions

Player - Someone who regularly shoots around par ( I was a professional for 6 years and have played in numerous USGA events )
Play ability - Shot values, forced carries, placment of hazards and OB, design of hazards and OB, fairway widths, green complexes and how they are designed to receive the typical approach shot for a particular hole, risk/reward  
Fairness - This attribute isn't one that I see very often in modern design.  Often times a player is penalized for hitting a shot that is longer and straighter than someone who doesn't.  Take most modern day fairway bunkers, fairly flat with a lip at the end of them.  I really don't prefer to see that type of design.  I would much prefer a few pot bunkers , so that if you hit it in a bunker, its equal for everyone.  I also don't mind church pews.  I would love to sit down and pick the brain of a GCA to find out how they feel about this sort of thing when it comes to bunker design.  Slopes in Greens that don't allow a player to get a ball that is on the green to within 5 feet of an elementary pin position.  Especially on holes that require a longer shot into a green ( see play ability

Pat - From a play ability standpoint holes 15-17 at CPC , can be reproduced anywhere in the world, there will be no ocean but hazards can be placed in the exact same points in relation to tees and greens making the holes identical on paper.  

David,

Either you've never played CPC or have no understanding of the nature of the hazards at # 15, 16 & 17.

You can't replicate those cliffs and the wind that combine to create unique holes.

If it was so easy to replicate them it would have been done at numerous projects, yet, none exist

TK - your impression that the bad holes made better due to the scenery is just about as opposite my view as one can get.  While I agree that these holes would be more bearable because one would gravitate towards the beauty and away from the golf itself, I feel a that these holes would actually be made worse from a design standpoint because the GCA didn't take advantage of fantastic natural terrain that was present.  

[Dan King]

David Bartman writes:
Fairness - This attribute isn't one that I see very often in modern design.  Often times a player is penalized for hitting a shot that is longer and straighter than someone who doesn't.

And this is one of the many reasons very good golfers should be kept away from influencing the design of golf courses.  They are far too prone to designing a golf course to fit their game. As far as I have ever seen, distance is much more often an advantage in golf rather than a disadvantage. But you want advantages beyond your ability to hit a long ball, believing you should never be penalized for hitting it far.

You want a golf course that will reward good shots and punish bad shots. I think golfers need to be tested mentally as well as physically, and I think the idea of occasionally punishing a good shot and rewarding a bad shot is what makes golf a much more interesting game than American golf. More often than not a good shot will work better than a bad shot, but it should never be a given. There should always be luck playing a major part on golf. It's part of the reason the game is played on a live, constantly changing field.   

Cheers,
Dan King

Beyond the fact that it is a limitless arena for the full play of human nature, there is no sure accounting for golf's fascination. Obviously yet mysteriously, it furnishes its devotees with an intense, many-sided, and abiding pleasure unlike that which any other form of recreation affords. Perhaps it is, as Andrew Carnegie once claimed, `indispensable adjunct of high civilization'. Perhaps it is nothing more than the best game man has ever devised.
  --Herbert Warren Wind  (The Complete Golfer)

[Ben Jarvis]

David Bartman writes:
Fairness - This attribute isn't one that I see very often in modern design.  Often times a player is penalized for hitting a shot that is longer and straighter than someone who doesn't.

And this is one of the many reasons very good golfers should be kept away from influencing the design of golf courses.  They are far too prone to designing a golf course to fit their game. As far as I have ever seen, distance is much more often an advantage in golf rather than a disadvantage. But you want advantages beyond your ability to hit a long ball, believing you should never be penalized for hitting it far.

You want a golf course that will reward good shots and punish bad shots. I think golfers need to be tested mentally as well as physically, and I think the idea of occasionally punishing a good shot and rewarding a bad shot is what makes golf a much more interesting game than American golf. More often than not a good shot will work better than a bad shot, but it should never be a given. There should always be luck playing a major part on golf. It's part of the reason the game is played on a live, constantly changing field.  

Cheers,
Dan King



I wonder if "straight" is being defined as in the middle of the fairway or on the correct side or position of the fairway?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

David, I must say I agree with Tom and others on this. i have been fortunate to play those holes many times and rarely are things the same. The conditions change many times over the course of a day much less a week or a month. Yes the same occurs on a links course and frankly that is the defense of the course. A links course in a benign day is a toothless test for far less a golfer than you. I have been a single digit guy most of my life and appreciate shotmaking with the best of them. Frankly I feel like the mindset you put forth leaves you missing much of the beauty and greatness the game offers. Maybe when your skills erode a bit with age or life you may look at things differently. oh and there is no recreating 15 to 17 at Cypress nor can one recreate 11,12 and 13 or 7,8 and 9. 2 and 4 are incredible holes. 1 is a tough opener. Thankfully the greatness of a course is not measured by most of the golfing world by hard.  I am thankful to have played Carnouste enough times to see it in multiple wind directions from benign to well gales, rain to balmy. It is a great course as well which i hold a special place for, but would never call it as memorable as Cypress Pointe.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()