[Rob Clisdell]

Greetings all,
Long-time observer, first-time poster. I’m based in Sydney and play most of my golf in and around there. Handicap of 8-point-something but with an 18-month old there’s not a lot of time for actual golf, hence I get my golf fix via GCA.com!
So…I have a question for the treehouse (I have not seen this topic covered previously, but if it has, feel free to roast me for being a [size=0pt]moron[/size]). The topic of this thread may be a little misleading as I’m not referring to playing CPC 16^th as a par 4, but imagining what if it actually was a par 4.
Allow me to explain.
From google earth (see photo below) there appears to be a small island beyond where the existing 16^th green is located. Do any of the CPC history buffs know whether MacKenzie/Hollins considered locating the green on that location and playing the hole as a par 4? There may be a couple of practical issues with this such as a) insufficient or inappropriate soil b) too exposed to the elements c) the need to build a small bridge to access it and resultant longer green to 17^th tee walk d) absent any other changes the par for the course would then be 73
However, just as the current 16^th is widely regarded as one of the greatest par 3’s on the planet, assuming this hole could be built it may well be regarded as one of the greatest par 4’s. The options for playing it as I see it would be:
Option 1 (Conservative): Tee shot to the large landing area near the old tree and longer second shot to the green. Given the length of the second shot, shorter hitters may also possibly play this as an easy bogey, hard par, par 5
Option 2 (Aggressive): Tee shot to where the current green is located, risking the bottleneck near that site and a longer carry, but achieving an easier approach shot as the payoff
Option 3 (Tiger line): Driving the green. Although the distance doesn’t look materially longer than that to the current green, I assume this ‘career shot’ option was not available given the equipment of the 1920’s, but potentially is today?
I’ve never played the course so it’s hard to know how realistic this is, and I would be interested in people’s thoughts.
**Bonus Round**
If this hole was build able and you were the (lucky) architect, what sort of green would you build (shape/angle/slope etc) to optimise the 3 playing options?


]

[Matthew Essig]

Throwing in a couple of pictures to help get a better idea of the "island"

[Josh Stevens]

One might argue that perhaps it might have been fairer to push the green back 10m on its existing piece of rock so it was not  so much of a heroic carry as you have a little more space in front of the green to stop a longer iron or 3 wood.

Then you could move the 17th tee way out onto the edge of the rock and make it even more of a cape like drive with maybe a 280m carry to reach the 17th green ( Dustin Johnson would have a go at that). 

As it stands, it looks about 300m to clear the rocks on the 17th - has anyone ever done it?

[Jim Nugent]

Cool looking and cool idea.  I'd love to hear the thoughts from people who have played CPC. 

[Niall C]

Rob


What about option 4 which is as per option 1 for the tee shot, then play to the existing green site and then play over to the new green site from there. Not sure of the relative distances but with option 1 the second shot looks as long if not longer than the drive. I suspect most folk hit the ball better off the tee, at least when asked to hit over water !


Niall

[Rob Clisdell]

Josh - nice idea, hadn't thought of that one. Bringing the tee forward on 17 looks like it may gain the player a good 40-50 yards, which may well make 17 drive able for the longest of hitters. At least it looks that way from the aerials.


Niall - agree. This was my thinking for the shorter hitters where even though it may be a short par 4, a realistic strategy may be 'hard par, easy bogey' par 5, with a lay up second shot to the current 16th green site. It would be a brutal second shot approach for shorter hitters.


Rob

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have only played CPC once and looked at the proposed site for the green. I had thought of this option before I played it. Having been there it would make a crazy hole. I would not tinker with it. It is one of the most outstanding par threes in the world.

[Brad Tufts]

Hi Rob, fun idea...

My thoughts...your supposition has a greensite that is probably too small for a fairly-sized green, and would create an awkward 7i-SW par four for all but the top 1% of long hitters.  Also, option 2 is alot of risk for the result, a 30-50y pitch shot, so taking on that risk when a mid-iron to the fairway still leaves a spinnable wedge wouldn't make much sense.

I would concur with Josh S. that the thought experiment makes more sense with pushing the green back towards the 17th tee.  But sort of awkward either way.  Even pushing the green back towards the current 17 tee would only increase the distance to 250 or 260, which is still probably a par three, but with more bailout and a bit less spectacular shot values.

[Kalen Braley]

There have been several threads on this topic....and they never get old!!   

I too have played it once and in retrospect, I think the new green location could work if erosion could be kept at bay.

In the OP, the distance needed for the Tiger Line and the line to the existing 16 green is almost the same. A good player could easily still get there with much less than a driver.  And to boot the aggressive line doesn't really work because anyone who can make that carry will just go for the green.

So I took a screenshot and added where a new tee might work better.  The red line, aka Tiger Line is now a much more demanding shot.  The yellow line is still aggressive, but much more doable and less risky than from the existing 16 tee.  And the safe play remains intact.  It seems to me, this would be more proportional in terms of how much risk you take and what you get in return.

[Josh Stevens]

Would the 17th be one of the few examples where it makes sense to actually make a hole shorter in the face of increased distance?

In the days of Balata and persimmon, the carry to the green was impossible.  Now it is possible, albeit only for a few, so does making the hole 20 yards shorter, actually make it harder for the big boys by dangling that tantalising option?

[Marty Bonnar]

We did a thread on this a while back. I even did a quick visualisation...



Cheers,
F.

[Sven Nilsen]

While we're at it, why don't we give the Mona Lisa a more modern hairstyle, tack a couple of wings on the Parthenon and add an extra Act to Romeo and Juliet to give it a happy ending.

[BCowan]

I much prefer the ideas for a new Amen corner 11,12, and 13 at ANGC.  looking for the thread.

[Jim Adkisson]

While we're at it, why don't we give the Mona Lisa a more modern hairstyle, tack a couple of wings on the Parthenon and add an extra Act to Romeo and Juliet to give it a happy ending.

Romeo and Juliette is already longer than CPC 16th tee shot for a 20 handicapper...once the kids are dead the play should end!

[Will Lozier]

One might argue that perhaps it might have been fairer to push the green back 10m on its existing piece of rock so it was not  so much of a heroic carry as you have a little more space in front of the green to stop a longer iron or 3 wood.

Then you could move the 17th tee way out onto the edge of the rock and make it even more of a cape like drive with maybe a 280m carry to reach the 17th green ( Dustin Johnson would have a go at that). 

As it stands, it looks about 300m to clear the rocks on the 17th - has anyone ever done it?

Josh,


This is an impossible proposition as the green site would then be on the slant of the hill you climb to get to the 17th tee, a hill with a steep slope impossible to build a green upon. It is a perfect hole that cannot be improved upon very simply. When you play it, you'll surely realize it!


Cheers

[Josh Stevens]

I did come oh so close to getting a game about 15 years back.  Met an old member in the bar of the PUC while in SF on business and he offered a game, but I had commitments elsewhere. 
Alas I suspect he is no longer with us

[Kalen Braley]

Bonnar, I like the sketch up...but those new back tees on 17 would make it a really tough 4....unless its just big boy tees. 

[Thomas Dai]

How is pace of play at this part of the course (assuming there are enough players to hold other groups up!).


Par-3 15th over the coast, then the 16th, a longer par-3 (or possible future short par-4 as is being discussed herein), again over the coast, and then the par-4 17th, once more over the coast but this time where the tee is located such that you walk immediately adjacent to the existing 16th green. I can envisage many a ball on the rocks or in the sea and many a re-load, all while the folks behind lean on their clubs or take numerous photos.


Atb

[Kalen Braley]

How is pace of play at this part of the course (assuming there are enough players to hold other groups up!).


Par-3 15th over the coast, then the 16th, a longer par-3 (or possible future short par-4 as is being discussed herein), again over the coast, and then the par-4 17th, once more over the coast but this time where the tee is located such that you walk immediately adjacent to the existing 16th green. I can envisage many a ball on the rocks or in the sea and many a re-load, all while the folks behind lean on their clubs or take numerous photos.


Atb

Thomas,

Safe to say for those who aren't members and getting a once in a lifetime opportunity, pace of play is probably the last thing on your mind.  Hopefully its not too terribly burdensome for the members...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()