I would argue that not only isn't the 18th at Cypress "disastrous," it actually is a great 18th hole. It is especially good when you think of the game most of us play--match play, usually with a partner. MacKenzie thought of it as being a precision hole, concluding a round on a course offering many options on most holes. It is like two very precise Par-3 hole shots following each other. Maybe it takes some getting used to, but it is a perfect conclusion to a round. The criticism of it has become almost an "in thing" to do without much thinking--just because it looks and plays somewhat differently than the other holes that give the player more options. But I have heard
compliments from some of the best golf minds, who have thought more about it, and praise it.
Jim, you sound like you are describing a "target golf hole" at some generic desert course in Scottsdale...
What, in fact, IS YOUR argument?
I dont see it.
You knock down a tree or two and it's a different hole.
Maybe a good 6th or 13th hole, but a closer?
It's just so antithetical to every other hole there.
Not sure I am very familiar with any Golden Age GCAs pointing to trees to make a strategic statement on a golf hole.
Are you?
Then again, I also think 17 is a bizarre hole with a mini-forest in the middle of a fairway and bunkers where you simply CANNOT advance the ball because of all the stupid trees.
Take the trees away (that are basically in or on your driving line) on 17 and 18 and you really have two very easy closing holes.
Not sure our heros in "The Match" would agree....