[Michael Whitaker]

Michael,

Apollogies to LG and yourself....you clearly mix with the best!

Mark

No apology required... just didn't want Lucas to get misplaced credit for the comments within this thread.

I do mix with the best... especially my newfound friends in the UK, one of whom talked me into making one of the best golf decisions of my life, namely joining Royal Cinque Ports Golf Club. Thank you, Chappers!!!

[AChao]

Thanks to Gary Sato, I just got to play Seminole and I had played Cypress Point a long time ago (20 years or so).  At the core of this debate is actually equipment and the spread in distances between recreational players and top players in my opinion ... and following that Seminole holds up better than Cypress Point depending on how far your hit the ball.  For someone like me, Cypress Point is still the best course in the world of those that I have played or seen, and Seminole is high up in the upper echelon.


Let me elaborate on distance.  I'm around 50 years old, rusty scratch player, drive around 270-275 yards, hit 8-iron 155 ish.  Most of my recreational friends are around 10 handicap and drive around 220 yards and hit 8-iron 125 ish.  Two people I play a lot of golf with on a relative basis are my nephew who is one of the top juniors in the world and a friend who is a mini-tour pro.  They hit it 310 ish off the tee and 8 iron is 180 or so. 


I haven't played CP in a long time, but I would think I would find it OK yardage wise and still great design-wise.  Maybe play a little short.  If I played Seminole from the 7,250 tees (we played from 6,700), I'd probably find it about right or slightly long.


For my recreational friends, CP would be a good distance, and we'd have to figure-out which tees they should play at Seminole.


However, for my nephew and mini-tour pro, Seminole would probably play short at 7,250 while CP they would find uninteresting on a lot of shots (based on previous comments at a few other courses.)


It's become harder to have more consensus on how a course stands because it seems the spread in distance from top players vs recreational players has increased so much.

[jeffwarne]

Thanks to Gary Sato, I just got to play Seminole and I had played Cypress Point a long time ago (20 years or so).  At the core of this debate is actually equipment and the spread in distances between recreational players and top players in my opinion ... and following that Seminole holds up better than Cypress Point depending on how far your hit the ball.  For someone like me, Cypress Point is still the best course in the world of those that I have played or seen, and Seminole is high up in the upper echelon.


Let me elaborate on distance.  I'm around 50 years old, rusty scratch player, drive around 270-275 yards, hit 8-iron 155 ish.  Most of my recreational friends are around 10 handicap and drive around 220 yards and hit 8-iron 125 ish.  Two people I play a lot of golf with on a relative basis are my nephew who is one of the top juniors in the world and a friend who is a mini-tour pro.  They hit it 310 ish off the tee and 8 iron is 180 or so. 


I haven't played CP in a long time, but I would think I would find it OK yardage wise and still great design-wise.  Maybe play a little short.  If I played Seminole from the 7,250 tees (we played from 6,700), I'd probably find it about right or slightly long.


For my recreational friends, CP would be a good distance, and we'd have to figure-out which tees they should play at Seminole.


However, for my nephew and mini-tour pro, Seminole would probably play short at 7,250 while CP they would find uninteresting on a lot of shots (based on previous comments at a few other courses.)


It's become harder to have more consensus on how a course stands because it seems the spread in distance from top players vs recreational players has increased so much.

Yet interestingly the manufacturers have hoodwinked the 10's (the majority) into thinking they're "having more fun" being 100 yards shorter off the tee behind their athletic buddies by convincing those same people to build hordes of tees-ironically to "play it forward" with all that fancy equipment their buddies smoke it by them with.


Watching Shell's Wonderful World of golf right now
MGGA (and do it in an hour less)

[Jeff Schley]

It seems sacrilegious to claim these icons are overrated, but like the 10 second barrier in the 100 meter dash, the 4 minute mile, a woman dunking the ball, 100 mph pitch, athletic accomplishments are evolving and can make some benchmarks obsolete for competition.  I myself strongly believe the iconic courses don't have to host the best players in the world in competition to be the best. The 99% of the golfers in the world still relish them for their shot values and stern test. These great courses can always host women's competitions as well, if they want to stay with their original footprint (i.e. Chicago GC hosting the Sr. Women's Open).

Great tournament courses and great courses can be mutually exclusive.  I'd much rather play the later and all of us at GCA will appreciate them regardless of if they host tournaments. The equipment has changed the goal posts as to what courses can host tournaments, however we must ensure that same standards exists for great courses.

[Jim Nugent]

In 2012 Bubba Watson, Ricky Fowler, Davis Love III and Nick Watney played CPC.  All had won on tour by then, with 20+ victories between them.  Bubba was the defending Masters champ. 

Love shot 67, Watson 70, Watney 71, Fowler 73.  That was on "a windless day, with soft greens," according to the article in Golf Mag. 

A few quotes from the players...
Fowler: "I think it stands the test of time."

Watson: "my favorite course in the world. Who wouldn't want to play here every day for the rest of their life?"
Love, who hit lots of 2-irons and 3-woods off the tee: "Any MacKenzie course you have to think your way around it. This place is going to give you some birdies, obviously. But if you get out of position you can make a double bogey in a hurry."



 

[Jeff Schley]

In 2012 Bubba Watson, Ricky Fowler, Davis Love III and Nick Watney played CPC.  All had won on tour by then, with 20+ victories between them.  Bubba was the defending Masters champ. 

Love shot 67, Watson 70, Watney 71, Fowler 73.  That was on "a windless day, with soft greens," according to the article in Golf Mag. 

A few quotes from the players...
Fowler: "I think it stands the test of time."

Watson: "my favorite course in the world. Who wouldn't want to play here every day for the rest of their life?"
Love, who hit lots of 2-irons and 3-woods off the tee: "Any MacKenzie course you have to think your way around it. This place is going to give you some birdies, obviously. But if you get out of position you can make a double bogey in a hurry."

Good info Jim. Probably won't happen in the future, but would be interesting to see what would happen at CP.

[Ted Sturges]

Perhaps you could just slap him upside the head for me.

Funniest thing I've read on GCA in a decade. 

[Tim Martin]

What a great old thread. I became immersed after reading just a couple of posts and went through all eleven pages. People may have been at odds over certain issues with people like Tom Paul, Wayne Morrison and Pat Mucci but the site has suffered from their absence.

[Mark Chaplin]

Since this thread started I’ve had the pleasure of playing Cypress Point although sadly it was two days after the greens were punched and heavily sanded and our round took over 5 hours including a 4 group 45 minute wait on the 16th tee. For me the surprise of the round was the quality of the golf from 4-13, 14-17 matched my high expectations and 18 was a mystery to me and I’m sure many others. I’d love to play there again when the greens and the golfers are at the normal speed.

[Ira Fishman]

This thread highlights why I find golf course architecture such a multidimensional fascinating art form. With a very few exceptions, sports are contested on a standard or close to standard playing field.  The sole competition and comparison is among the athletes with the playing field being largely irrelevant as a point of reference. When I played pick up basketball (a long time ago), I did not walk off wondering what MJ thought of the court. And I doubt he ever spent a minute thinking whether a particular court was overrated (fans and atmosphere may be a different story). Nor except perhaps in tennis where court surfaces vary to some extent, do we or commentators spend much time analyzing why one playing field is better or worse for a given competitor the way such analysis happens in golf.  In golf, the playing field plays (no pun intended) an enormous and impactful role on how each and every player interacts with the game emotionally, competitively, and intellectually. I have not played Seminole but I did finagle my bucket list round at CPC. I too would want to hit the pro (wonder if he has played it again in the past decade) upside his head, but he is but one view from one perspective in an endlessly complex, nuanced, highly personal experience and exploration.


Ira

[Sinclair Eaddy]

Since this thread started I’ve had the pleasure of playing Cypress Point although sadly it was two days after the greens were punched and heavily sanded and our round took over 5 hours including a 4 group 45 minute wait on the 16th tee. For me the surprise of the round was the quality of the golf from 4-13, 14-17 matched my high expectations and 18 was a mystery to me and I’m sure many others. I’d love to play there again when the greens and the golfers are at the normal speed.

Speed of the greens or the round will not be a problem at Seminole. I like the fact that they enforce their unofficial time par, 3:45, and are doing their part to MGGA.

[Kalen Braley]

Ira,

A little surprised you didn't mention Baseball as its probably the next closest major sport with varying fields of play.

The wall at Fenway
The short porch in right at Yankee stadium
The long outs at Minute Maid field with the elevated section in dead center.
Or even the massive foul territory in Oakland where you get extra outs defensively.
Not to mention the issues with playing at elevation in Colorado.

[Ira Fishman]

Kalen,


I had Baseball in mind when I said “close to standard”.  The variations you mention do clearly affect play and probably how different players “rate” the stadiums. Our members would probably tell you that there is a big difference between playing American Football outdoors in Chicago in December and indoors the same week in Minnesota. [size=78%]However, t[/size][/size][size=78%]he variations and variables in golf course architecture are more numerous and both pronounced and nuanced which makes the interaction between player and playing field more complex and interesting.[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]Ira[/size]

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira - which leads, I think, to a key question: by what framework/rationale could we say that the pro's subjective experience of gca, in this case of Seminole & Cypress, is any less valid than Tom D's, or yours?  One answer is to say: 'well, the subjective experience is no less valid, but the expressed opinion is easily discounted (e.g. as an extreme outlier, or as a product of the .01% etc).  But given that we're talking about an art-craft that, I'm told, is largely a matter of taste and that is not bound by firm rules or shaped by objective/never changing principles, that answer strikes me as unsatisfying.
P   

[JMEvensky]

Peter, to quote the great philosopher Woody Allen, all subjectivity is objective.

[Ira Fishman]

Peter,


Pat Mucci who left the board before I joined seemed to argue that magazine rankings are “objective.” For lots of reasons that have been articulated in multiple threads including this one, I would disagree. However, principled disagreements based on subjective perspective does not make every opinion equally valid. There clearly are distinctions among “heroic”, “strategic”, and “penal”. There also are clear differences between fast and firm and softer. I prefer as do most on GCA a combination of strategic and heroic on fast and firm. Such courses to me are more interesting and fun but still can provide plenty of challenge for the 98%. Certainly CPC nears the top of my list.


The pro who prompted this thread probably can articulate why a CPC or Seminole (which I have not played) are not as interesting or fun for him because he derives great pleasure from scoring being more difficult and perhaps the challenging fun of hitting difficult recovery shots.


So yes, our perspectives are subjective because the criterion we are using might vary. But so long as we can state and defend our positions, the debate is not unbounded. I am not a big fan of Congressional which the pro had on his list of favorites. I find it does not provide a lot of options and gets a bit boring even though there are some excellent holes. Maybe upon discussion the pro would get me to see the course differently or vice verse. Either way so long as we are open to listening to the reasons for our positions, we are going to have an enjoyable and educational debate.


What does not work is to say a course is great because most other people say it is. That is a cop out that avoids stating one’s underlying philosophy and one’s application of principles.


Ira

[Pat Burke]

My comment may be dated.  It’s been 10 years since I played CPC, and I played Seminole about 4 years ago.  At 56 now, I’m from a different generation of players, but have been teaching some high level guys, and been involved peripherally a bit with this generation.


To me, CPC still seems to be a place pros want to play.  Haven’t heard any player say it was a cool place.  These guys overpower, by design every course they play, or at least atTempt to, but the guys I’ve listened to mostly seem to feel like CPC is a course to play. Fwiw

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()