Four putts on the 16th at Cypress Point is plausible

[Matt Schoolfield]

I was intrigued by DMoriarty's post shared last week about skepticism of MacKenzie's tall tail:

I was traveling from San Francisco to New York with a man who is affectionately know as Billy Humphrey. He said, “What sort of hole do you think your 16th at Cypress Point is? I don’t think a hole is a golf hole that can be played with a putter.” “On the contrary,” I said, “I don’t think and ideal hole is ideal unless it can be played with a putter, but we won’t argue about that. What is your trouble?” He said, “Well, I was playing this hole against Herbert Fleischaker for two hundred dollars. [Herbert Fleischaker has a reputation of not being able to get a ball off the ground, but he is full of brains, is a very good approacher and putter, and often outwits a more powerful opponent.] It was my honour, and I put two shots in the ocean. Then old Herbert gets his putter, takes four putts to reach the green, wins the hole and two hundred dollars.” I am afraid I was not unduly sympathetic.

So, I spent a bit too much time this weekend writing a post about it on Wigs. Here's my general thesis:
First, there was no ice plant blocking the route back then:


Next, the "putters" had significantly more loft:



And with both of these facts, you can see that four 75-yard putts can put you safely on the green. Giving Fleischaker, who was skilled even if he couldn't get the ball in the air, a totally plausible chance at getting down in six to win the hole:



At this point I see no reason for the skepticism in the previous post. I think MacKenzie includes the anecdote exactly because he seems to have a soft spot for the ground game. In fact, he always discusses players who run the ball up along contours with admiration throughout the book, and I suspect his moral here is much more about that than it is about making a course beginner friendly.

Anyway, obviously the full post is on the blog, but this is the gist. It was fun doing a deep dive and trying to figure out who Billy Humphrey was. It's an interesting story, and with inflation, the bet was for about $4,000. Definitely an audacious strategy for a bet of that size.

[Charlie Goerges]

It is, and was, absolutely possible to do it. I feel like I still agree with David that it would be a highly unlikely way to play the hole even for a very weak player. One sideways kick off a rock or rut in the trail and you're in the ocean, plus everything else David mentioned. Unless the bet was "I bet you can't beat me with only a putter" who is going to waste one of their finite plays of the 16th on a putter-only strategy? And this from a guy who played to the isthmus of himself?


Beyond that, there's the common golf-apocryphal-story phrasing and hallmarks. Hogan's Hollywood "O" story occurred at at least three different courses, same construction.


That said, it's a good rundown and a fun thing to think about. If the time ever comes for me, I'm going for it... short of a gale-force wind forcing me to lay up.

[Matt Schoolfield]

It is, and was, absolutely possible to do it. I feel like I still agree with David that it would be a highly unlikely way to play the hole even for a very weak player. One sideways kick off a rock or rut in the trail and you're in the ocean, plus everything else David mentioned. Unless the bet was "I bet you can't beat me with only a putter" who is going to waste one of their finite plays of the 16th on a putter-only strategy? And this from a guy who played to the isthmus of himself?


Beyond that, there's the common golf-apocryphal-story phrasing and hallmarks. Hogan's Hollywood "O" story occurred at at least three different courses, same construction.


That said, it's a good rundown and a fun thing to think about. If the time ever comes for me, I'm going for it... short of a gale-force wind forcing me to lay up.

We must suspect that the wind was up if Humphrey dunked two in the ocean. At that point, the inferior equipment lends itself to the bump and run, not against it.


The story itself makes little sense if it isn’t about the virtue of the running shot, and the contours of the cliff act as a backstop for play to the left, not against it. The point is that he isn’t a “weaker” player, it’s noted explicitly that he is strong except for playing the aerial game.

[Charlie Goerges]

We must suspect that the wind was up if Humphrey dunked two in the ocean. At that point, the inferior equipment lends itself to the bump and run, not against it.


The story itself makes little sense if it isn’t about the virtue of the running shot, and the contours of the cliff act as a backstop for play to the left, not against it. The point is that he isn’t a “weaker” player, it’s noted explicitly that he is strong except for playing the aerial game.

Not to get too bogged down in the truth value of the story, I'll reiterate that it is definitely possible. I'll also note that the story is incredibly convenient for Mackenzie in order to make his point.


That said, the philosophical point about providing a path for the higher handicapper (or equivalent) is always worth discussing. What I like about Mackenzie's writings especially is how he thought the game should be fun and exciting for the weaker player too. Even so, a precarious path might not quite meet the criteria to make the hole "puttable" in a meaningful way. However, I do not think he should have done anything differently here, it's just too good to pass up. Sometimes you have to build the better hole even if it's less playable. If you're playing match play, the worst fate you can suffer is the loss of a hole. A  small price to pay for playing (what many have said is) the most beautiful golf hole in the world.

[Tom_Doak]

Looks like a difficult second shot!

[MCirba]

What is Wigs?

[Matt Schoolfield]

Looks like a difficult second shot!

Au contraire! While I was planning on doing a short little write up, it quickly turned into nearly two days of research. And while I don't have access to such clubs, I do have YouTube Premium. After poking around I found this image:



Here we see that when playing left, there are very friendly contours. Playing second shot away from the cliff should allow it to safely run back down toward that pine grove at the edge of the fairway. I measured the shots at 75 yards each, but considering how wide open the third shot is, I think that would it would make sense to lay up short of that grove and then play the third stronger, up onto the fairway, to reach that famous downslope the standard lay up plays to.

What is Wigs?

Wigs on the Green is my golf blog. I typically just post a short form here for the stuff I work on in depth there.

[Mark_Fine]

I don’t know about #16 but I am guessing Herbert just picked up on #15 which you definitely can’t play with a putter (at least rolling it on the ground).  I can hit a ball a long way with my putter in the air if I tee it high but that was not Mackenzie’s point.

[Charlie Goerges]

Matt, is that image supposed to make it look like a not difficult shot? Because I don't think the last image supports your thesis very well. It would be an easy shot with a wedge, but not with a putter. Unless I'm really missing something. (even accepting there was no fence or iceplant originally.)


Again, I feel like the real point is to make the holes playable and exciting and beautiful (even or especially for higher handicappers), something Mackenzie was known for.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Matt, is that image supposed to make it look like a not difficult shot? Because I don't think the last image supports your thesis very well. It would be an easy shot with a wedge, but not with a putter. Unless I'm really missing something. (even accepting there was no fence or iceplant originally.)


Again, I feel like the real point is to make the holes playable and exciting and beautiful (even or especially for higher handicappers), something Mackenzie was known for.

The first shot would play to the pine grove on the left with no carry. The second to the pine grove right, with no carry. I don’t see those as very difficult shots, especially playing a 75-yard bump-and-run with what is effectively a four iron, and especially playing at the trees (away from the cliffs) with the gentle slope that pushes the player away from being blocked out behind them. One wouldn’t even need a full swing; these are just half-shots at most with a low lofted club.


My main thesis is exactly that I think we are misinterpreting the moral/maxim MacKenzie is advocating here. I fully admit that he says it is about weaker players, but I suspect, given his constant praise in the manuscript of players who run the ball off contours (discussed regarding TOC #10 and #16 especially) that he means players that are good but run the ball.


The entire anecdote doesn’t make sense if it’s about a generally weaker player, as MacKenzie specifically points out that Fleischaker is quite good in all but one area.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt, is that image supposed to make it look like a not difficult shot? Because I don't think the last image supports your thesis very well. It would be an easy shot with a wedge, but not with a putter. Unless I'm really missing something. (even accepting there was no fence or iceplant originally.)


Again, I feel like the real point is to make the holes playable and exciting and beautiful (even or especially for higher handicappers), something Mackenzie was known for.

The first shot would play to the pine grove on the left with no carry. The second to the pine grove right, with no carry. I don’t see those as very difficult shots, especially playing a 75-yard bump-and-run with what is effectively a four iron, and especially playing at the trees (away from the cliffs) with the gentle slope that pushes the player away from being blocked out behind them. One wouldn’t even need a full swing; these are just half-shots at most with a low lofted club.


My main thesis is exactly that I think we are misinterpreting the moral/maxim MacKenzie is advocating here. I fully admit that he says it is about weaker players, but I suspect, given his constant praise in the manuscript of players who run the ball off contours (discussed regarding TOC #10 and #16 especially) that he means players that are good but run the ball.


The entire anecdote doesn’t make sense if it’s about a generally weaker player, as MacKenzie specifically points out that Fleischaker is quite good in all but one area.

In the aerial photo in your first post, you've got to play a 75-yard shot on the ground with the ocean about ten feet to the right and a cluster of cypress trees just to the left.  I'd give you three tries and bet you wind up in the water or the trees at least once.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I'd give you three tries and bet you wind up in the water or the trees at least once.

You may be correct, I may be wrong. I certainly wouldn’t bet $4K on it like Fleischaker allegedly did. That said, it doesn’t look particularly difficult to me. The shot I would worry about is avoiding the fronting bunkers. That looks like a genuine test of control.

The good and bad news is I don’t have to worry about it due to the location. However, it does make me want to buy a 20° chipper, just to see how much control there was on those old stymie-era putters.

[MCirba]

You guys are actually arguing about an unprovable assertion?

[Kalen Braley]

You guys are actually arguing about an unprovable assertion?

Cmon Mike,

Tom certainly has the juice to get out there whenever he wants.  Now whether or not he would want to try to the putter play is a different story. 

P.S.  I still think the Ice plant is the biggest issue. Looking at Google Earth it would take a 50 yard carry to get over it, and if you fail you'd be lucky to find your ball much less play it. And as Tom pointed out the landing area is pretty small beyond it with trees left and ocean drop-off to the right.

[Charlie Goerges]

You guys are actually arguing about an unprovable assertion?

That made me laugh! So good!

[Matt Schoolfield]

Come on y'all, it's all in good fun...

"Fleischaker's Four-Putt Challenge"

I agree with Kalen that the ice plant is a non-starter, but since it didn't used to exist, I think players should be allowed to wedge over it or drop out of it. After that though, four-iron lofts or lower to the green. Green in regulation (four shots) is the goal, but you need to two-putt, with the club you used to get there, to beat Humphrey.

If it is ever attempted by anyone, please share the results! 

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt, is that image supposed to make it look like a not difficult shot? Because I don't think the last image supports your thesis very well. It would be an easy shot with a wedge, but not with a putter. Unless I'm really missing something. (even accepting there was no fence or iceplant originally.)


Again, I feel like the real point is to make the holes playable and exciting and beautiful (even or especially for higher handicappers), something Mackenzie was known for.

The first shot would play to the pine grove on the left with no carry. The second to the pine grove right, with no carry. I don’t see those as very difficult shots, especially playing a 75-yard bump-and-run with what is effectively a four iron, and especially playing at the trees (away from the cliffs) with the gentle slope that pushes the player away from being blocked out behind them. One wouldn’t even need a full swing; these are just half-shots at most with a low lofted club.


My main thesis is exactly that I think we are misinterpreting the moral/maxim MacKenzie is advocating here. I fully admit that he says it is about weaker players, but I suspect, given his constant praise in the manuscript of players who run the ball off contours (discussed regarding TOC #10 and #16 especially) that he means players that are good but run the ball.


The entire anecdote doesn’t make sense if it’s about a generally weaker player, as MacKenzie specifically points out that Fleischaker is quite good in all but one area.

In the aerial photo in your first post, you've got to play a 75-yard shot on the ground with the ocean about ten feet to the right and a cluster of cypress trees just to the left.  I'd give you three tries and bet you wind up in the water or the trees at least once.

Tom,


On a related note, I remember a couple of the Renaissance guys played that long Par 5 at Cape Kidnappers with a putter. That was probably easier than #16 at Cypress Point.

[Kevin Pallier]

I dont subscribe to the original premise.

If one wants to play a game with just one club go play hockey.

I 3 putted for bogey on 16 so 4 putts is definitely possible

[Joel_Stewart]

I played Cypress Point last week and in my 30 years of playing there, its in the best condition I've seen.  The new president and green chair are Mackenzie loyalists and have cut back the rough and turned off the water.  Its firm and fast with a brownish tint. I've posted quite a few photos on Instagram.


A member - guest was last weekend and the greens were running 12-13 which is too fast IMHO, especially on greens like 1 and 18. The rumor which was confirmed by the caddies and pro shop staff is that two players putted off the 16th green into the ocean. I'm assuming the pin was on the front right in order to that.


I'm looking forward to the Walker Cup in 2025 to see how the USGA sets it up but if this is any indication, it going to be interesting.