Did Alister speak with forked tongue?

[Bob_Huntley]

It has been written that "Alister MacKenzie was one of golf's greatest architects. He designed his courses so that players of all skill levels could enjoy the game while still creating fantastic challenges for the most experienced players." Or so he claimed.

I was thinking of this as I played Cypress the other day. Playing with some aging members (most are), we came to the 18th hole and I realised that, for them, the hole was a disaster waiting to happen. I know some of my friends here can blow it over the trees with an iron, but these chaps have to hit it right and then hit a pitch left to get back to the fairway and still have an uphill shot of 150 yards or more to a treacherously sloped green.

I wonder if, after seventy five years, the good doctor wouldn't want to do something about those damned trees?

[Brian_Gracely]

Bob,

Does it severly hamper those member's enjoyment of the round, or is it just an unusually anti-climatic end to an otherwise glorious day?  If the former, chainsaw technology has improved to the point where almost anyone can get one started.  

Isn't the same argument made about the cypress on #17?

[THuckaby2]

Good question, Bob.  We've discussed the finishing hole at CPC before and it is a flash-point... most don't like it... I'm an oddball who enjoys the hole.

It is a damn hard golf hole, though.  Even the big hitters who can bash it over the trees have a difficult 2nd shot pretty much no matter what they do.  The huge tree short left of the green is just very hard to avoid.

I'm just trying to picture the hole without any trees though... and well.... it would be a basic drive and a pitch.  That is, drive to the base of the hill, pitch up.  While that would make things very much more doable for the older members, I wonder how much pleasurable excitement the hole would give to them then, not to mention the younger and/or stronger players....

I'm not sure what the answer here is.  And no, it's NOT reversing the course, as certain free-thinkers have postulated.  

TH

[Bob_Huntley]

Tom,
 I am not advocating a clear cut on the 18th, but you must admit the high handicapper is at a serious disadvantage.

Brian,

No matter what, the seventeenth is a serious golf hole, but I still hate holes that become obstacle courses caused by trees in the middle of the fairway.  

[Brian_Gracely]

Bob,

But isn't that the beauty of the game?  I understand the McKenzie concept of "greatest challenge for the greatest number of players", what about the concept of "from trouble comes the opportunity for great recoveries"?  Maybe they need to view the challenges of #18 differently as their games have evolved.  

[THuckaby2]

Bob:

I was just thinking the only way to make this work would be a clear cut... and then I find that even that doesn't work!  I guess a good answer would be cutting back the trees such that the high capper has a chance to reach in two, but the low capper is still troubled.  Maybe?

As for 17, is that a better or worse golf hole without the trees?  I'm really not sure... take those away and it's still great, heck, it's a two shotter along the ocean with a bite off as much as you can chew tee shot, but absent the tree it too becomes a drive and a pitch for the strong player....

TH

[Mike Hendren]

Bob,

My fuzzy recollection is that the tee ball at 18 is a crap shoot.  I have no problem with the tree left of the green.  It can be played under/over/around and avoided altogether with the appropriate tee ball.  

Better a simple cleared pitch and putt hole than the random trees off the tee that have no rhyme of reason, much less strategic merit.  There is no need for this hole to remain tricked up.  The first 17 are good enough and the player needs the de-compression (both from a scoring and stimulus perspective) the last affords.

Make sense?

Mike

[Joel_Stewart]

The hole plays much differently now, I would love to see them put back the numerous fairway bunkers on 18 as well as the bunkers around the tree on 17.

I've played CP numerous times and never had a problem with the 18th.  Aim and fire at the chimney of the clubhouse and you have a short iron into the green.  Do not hit it above the pin. Simple!

[Bob_Huntley]

Joel,

With confidence like that I want you as my partner when playing 'Wolf.' But I bet that with the chips on the line, you would clip the first tree, attempt a miraculous shot to the green but be thwarted by the over hanging limbs of the tree in front of the green, drop into the bunker, skull it over the green and take an easy six. Don't laugh, it's happened to me on many an occasion.

[Pete Lavallee]

Was the tree just off the tee, smack dab in the middle of the fairway, always in play on the 18th? In Geoff Cypress Point book it doesn't appear to be there. I certainly doubt that the Good Dr. would approve of it today, the strategy of the trees on the 17th is completely different. It appeared to me that it just grew there sometime after construction and no one had the heart, or nerve, to take it down.

[Brian_Gracely]

A while ago I somewhat chastized Mr.Huntley for a comment about a subject that I had no actual experience.  From some overhead pictures I thought I could see the routing of the hole, but I've since done some research and came across some of the few pictures of #18 that I've ever seen.  These were taken by a caddy that was there prior to the AT&T and comments are his.


"Tee shot on the par 4 18th, a 230 max shot between the tall tree on the left and the lone cypress tree in middle of the picture!"


"Your tee shot on 18 must carry this tree in the foreground left with a second shot up the hill of about 150 yards over a giant Cypress Tree!"


"Hit it too far to the end of the fairway off the tee and you're blocked out with this tree obscuring a shot that already plays about one club uphill!"


"A view of the approach to the severly sloping 18th green."


After seeing these, I can more clearly see where their frustration comes from.  

[TEPaul]

Bob Huntley mentioned;

"I am not advocating a clear cut on the 18th, but you must admit the high handicapper is at a serious disadvantage."

Bob;

The high handicapper is almost always at a disadvantage! But you were asking if Alister spoke with a forked tongue (regarding high handicappers).

No, he didn't. Actually Mackenzie, Hunter, Behr et al were all of one mind about the high handicapper architecturally speaking. Their philosophy regarding the high handicapper was that one did not design for him--one did not create architectural problems and solutions for the high handicapper simply because his own game was problem enough.

But on the other side of the coin they believed you did not unnecessarily penalize him either, or scare the pee out of him. Behr mentioned that it was not for the architect to tell the high handicapper when he did wrong---according to Behr that was the job of the golf professional!

But Bob, I should tell you that I've only played Cypress Point twice in my life and that was probably a good 15 years ago. However, I shall never forget my first impression on arriving at the 18th tee. I thought to myself why would anyone want to plant a grove of trees almost in the middle of the hole?

[Bob_Huntley]

TEP,

God bless you!

Bob

[BCrosby]

MacK may have had some sympathy for the weaker player, but not a lot. He did say:

"….long driving is not a crime -- it is a virtue and is more frequently by skill and grace of motion than by mere force.  Long drivers should be rewarded, and as a general rule they should have greater latitude, and not less, than short drivers."

He also said:

"[T]here should not only be a big advantage from negotiating successfully a long carry for the tee short, but the longer the drive, the greater should be the advantage.  A shorter driver should also by extreme accuracy, be able to gain an advantage over a long hitting, but less accurate opponent."

So MacK might not have been bothered much by your friends' travails. Weak hitters pay a price, things are tough everywhere. The 18th at CP would be consistent with the foregoing quotes.

On the other hand, I can't imagine any architect wanting one of his holes to be unplayable by weaker golfers.

Will I live to post again if I suggest that the 18th is a bad hole on an otherwise spectacularly good golf course?

Bob  

[TEPaul]

It's eternally interesting that golf architecture and golf holes will always have their supporters and detractors. Look at what Robert Hunter (a bit of a co-designer of Cypress) had to say about the quality of Cypress's #18;

"The last hole takes us along a very narrow route back to the clubhouse. This hole will require better play than the others and while it is short, it is amazing difficult and is, perhaps, in its contours and landscape, the most beautiful hole in the world."

[Bill_McBride]

I have to say that I have never been so confused standing on a tee.  Even with my caddy telling me, Hit it left! I was unable to commit to a swing along that line and blocked the ball up behind the trees right.  It is inconceivable that Dr MacKenzie envisioned that forest in the middle of the fairway. It's a bit like the Emperor's New Clothes!  "What trees?" say the acolytes!  "Trees?  What trees?"

But I can't wait 'til next time!

[A_Clay_Man]

Just as those trees were not that size, in the 20's, neither was life expectancy expected to allow for golf at 75+.

Who wins?

The octagenarian

Leave the trees (even if I think they don't belong)

[TEPaul]

Bill said above;

"It is inconceivable that Dr MacKenzie envisioned that forest in the middle of the fairway."

Bill:

It's understandable, I'm sure, to say that but in fact it's not at all true. Mackenzie actually did something on #18 and #17 too that's frankly even odder than that---on both those holes he had trees (and mature ones) throughout a very beautiful and quite large bunker scheme. On #17 he put an interesting bunker scheme in the middle of the fairway right in front of a group of trees.

Basically, I don't believe I've ever seen a golf architect and a great one at that do something like that but in fact Mackenzie did it intentionally on #17 and #18 in the creation of the golf course.

If almost anyone, and certainly one of us, saw that type of thing on a golf course today our first reaction would be what assinine golf committee planted trees throughout a perfectly good and strategic bunker scheme? But in this case no commitee did it, Alister Mackenzie did it himself and obviously intentionally!

And furthermore Alister was known throughout his entire career to absolutely hate green committees or even any committee!

So what should we say about this kettle of fish? We should say if a green committee did this they are nothing more than a bunch of Know-Nothing asses! But in this case the Good Doctor, the Great Alister Mackenzie, did it so it must be OK and our only reaction to those trees throughout otherwise perfectly good bunker schemes should be that they should never be removed!!

Because Alister did it, for whatever odd reason, our only response should be that we should NEVER reason why, we should only DO or Die!!  

[TEPaul]

"Just as those trees were not that size, in the 20's, neither was life expectancy expected to allow for golf at 75+."

Adam:

Just check out the photos in GeoffShac's Cypress book. Those trees throughout the bunker scheme on #18 (and #17)on the course's opening must have been at least 30ft high!!

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I feel if the tree, and a beautiful tree it is, in the middle of the driving line(left side of predogleg fairway) was taken down then the high handicapper would have a straight 200 to 230 yard shot to have a shot at the green. I try to take it over that tree with a knockdown3 wood/iron for Bob's better playing friends. Sometimes I hit a low draw around it if there is a strong wind from the east. It is such a small landing area to be on the right side of the fairway hitting to a very cool but hard to get to green. One should also take out a few of the trees on the dogleg to open the right angle in a bit. I would do all this then build the tee out on the rocks and have a finishing holes for the ages.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- Thanks for the history lesson. I don't have Geoff's book but I know those cypress trees grow slowly on the peninsula.

My point was really about the initial question Bob posed and the plight of the aging golfer. Old Cliff Harris, who use to caddy at CPC, gave up the game when he could no longer navigate the grounds effectively at about 86. He would show-up for the putting contest daily and was rumored to go to Montana, for three weeks fishing, on all the money he took off that putting green.

If Hunter felt so strongly about this hole, he must've been bitten by the tree trap syndrome. In hindsight, isn't that a bad thing? and doesn't it show how everyone of us isn't perfect? some 90-95%, but no one should be perfect.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

Good questions on your part. For my part, at least at the moment, I'd say that hole was originally designed with those trees throughout that bunker scheme and they were definitely mature trees and trees that had been there a good long while before that course was built.

(Again, for some odd reason Mackenzie decided to create bunkering throughout that grove of mature trees and intentionally designed a hole with a narrow left to right landing area).

As Hunter said, the hole was designed as not long but very difficult. That's what Mackenzie seemed to want there and personally I think the hole should be preserved that way. If some of the 75-80 year old members need two shots to get into position to approach that green then they just DO! I don't think any trees that Mackenzie used in his design of that hole should be removed. GeoffShac's book including some original photos is an excellent resource to the way Mackenzie intended that hole to be--including that grove of trees.

I've been reading a bunch of threads today from some of our regular contributors of how they'd redesign Mackenzie's hole at Lake Merced or some of his holes at Cyress to accomodate their fades or preceived strategies or whatever.

That kind of thinking really is no different to me than the self-consumed Green Chairman who redesigns his course to suit his own game.

Forget about that and just play a course and its holes! Forget about OPTIONS too if you have to. This fixation on this website that EVERY golf hole must have multiple options to be any good is bunk, in my opinion. Many good or great golf holes do have multiple options and strategies but many other great holes don't have that. Some of the greatest holes in the world are straight high demand holes that are actually low on options or at least the type of options some on this site think of as necesary options!

Does anyone on here really pay attention to the principle of "shot testing" that so many of those great old architects used to talk about--and stress? Sometimes I don't think so. On some of those great old high demand "shot testing" holes of the past the 75-80 year old high handicapper was probably expected to do something like take two shots to get into a position to approach a par 4 green!!!

Today, most all of us, including many on this site are fixated with options in the context of GIR for all levels of goflers! In the "Golden Age" of golf architecture GIR (against par) was not a big thing at all---although the hare and the tortoise analogy was!

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,  I have to disagree with you here, sort of.

First, MacKenzie most certainly did design for high handicapper, creating problems and solutions for the high handicapper.  He just realized these problems and solutions were often of a different type and or magnitude.  And he had the sense not to pile on when the high handicapper was doing his high handicapping.  Thus, dont place a bunker on the far right of a fairway where only the worst slice will find it, because that would be piling on.  But do put grass over there so the golfer can continue to enjoy the game.  And do provide the crummy golfer with a route to keep golfing his ball.

These are certainly architectural design solutions for the high handicapper.  A subtle departure from what you say, but an important one, since so many have no clue when it comes to the value of these solutions.  

As for the trees on 18, take a look at Geoff's book.  They were nothing like they are now.  I doubt that the good Dr. would have expected that they all would survive to clog up the hole the way they now do.  

Along those same lines, perhaps MacKenzie placed bunkers there so when these trees fell over, the club would have a solid replacement feature already in place.   And I for one doubt he would have planted these trees if they werent already there.  

Perhaps he was just biding his time until they fell over.  

[TEPaul]

DavidM:

Are you dreaming? Do you seriously think Mackenzie designed those bunkers amongst trees in the expectation that some day those trees would fall over and his strategic bunkering would finally be revealed?

As for how high those trees are today vs what they were in GeoffShac's book (which shows Mackenzie playing the course) I couldn't say. I haven't been to that course in at least 15 years and I certainly wasn't looking at them then with this in mind but in the photos in Geoff's book near to the date of opening (Mackenzie playing golf in those photos) anyone can see those trees appear to be 25-30ft high---that's significant.

As for the nuances of whether or not Mackenzie, Hunter and Behr, Egan et al were specifically designing problems and solutions for the higher handicapper, I have no doubt if they could read some of the things we're saying about them now they'd all probably say;

"You people are taking us far too seriously and thinking of things that never really occured to us!"

As far as what any of those architects did for the high handicapper it was probably not much more than doing something that insured if a high handicapper could hit a ball 100-120 yards he'd probably be just fine!