[THuckaby2]

My take is also that millions and millions of tourists are also glad that 17Mile Drive is where it is alongside Bob's club... and no one's complaining about Pebble Beach.  Tourists don't think "what if" like we do.  

I also find this question very interesting and though-provoking and even as a MacKenzie-phile I take absolutely no offense.  Well done, Tim.

TH

[TEPaul]

Again, I certainly don't mean to criticize Tim for asking the question. How about Pine Valley? Is there a better routing there on the landforms that were used? Possibly there is, maybe on the 12-15 stretch that was a couple of year obstacle to Crump in perfecting that routing stretch.

All I can say is there was an alternative to the present #14 designed that was one of the cooler looking true cape holes ever. It would have been about a 240-250yd downhill par 3 (probably) with a high risk option of an all water carry right at the green or about a 300yd second option out and around to the left with the topography kicking the ball hard right at the water or at the green.

I was there yesterday and looked at the landform that would have been used but then what would #15 have been? Obviously an extremely long tough par 4 using the same corridor as it now does but maybe going even higher up the hill than the present green does.

But then where would the back nine par 5 have been that Crump wanted on that nine going into the project? He wanted two unreachable par 5s, by the way. He could have made a great unnreachable par 5 by starting with a tee which is now #12 tee at the windmill and running all along the ridge to the left of #12 & #13 and ending at the present 13th green! That would have been an awesome hole--a really long par 5!

But OOps, Crump would have then finally connected his routing and only had 17 holes--as well as having one of the world's greatest par 4s being basically the last 2/3 of a great par 5 instead! Well, he could have done #12 & #13 just as they are now and had the last piece of the puzzle--#15--an interesting "go/no go" par 5 running up the hill (or a bit higher) just where it is now--maybe at a bit less than 500yds!

But Crump went into the project wanting two unnreachable par 5s, not a "go/no go"  one!

Just a few examples of the complexities of routing, natural landform hole concepts, balance and variety and on the very same landforms which are actually easier to imagine and speculate on than on land that never was considered for golf  (along the coast to the right of Cypress, in other words!).

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I didn't mean to suggest that you were taking an unfair shot.  It is just that I'm sitting in Cleveland unable to quickly run over to 17 Mile Drive and dig up more details for the discussion.

One of these days I'll make it back to Carmel and explore this issue further.

The last thing I want to do is criticize Mackenzie and especially for Cypress Point.  But, it would be pretty cool for someone to detail what an alternative routing might have looked like.

Just a hunch, but I'm betting a large percentage of people - maybe even some GCAers - would vote in favor of the alternative.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

You're sitting in Cleveland unable to get over to 17 mile Drive quickly? What's the matter with you--can't you get your priorities in order? This topic is almost a day old! You should have been at 17 mile drive no later than early this morning!

[Gib_Papazian]

I'll be spanked for stating this again, but I still do not believe that the  Good Doctor originally routed the golf course. Oh  sure, the holes might have been jiggered around after Raynor's  death, but I'd bet the basic routing was  already in place when MacKenzie and Hunter were brought in.

While we are second guessing (or participating in an speculative academic discussion) the routing, has anyone considered the directionality and orientation of the proposed redesign on the existing Spyglass holes?

One of the charms of  Cypress is not only its wandering through different environments, but the changing direction of the course in the breeze.  

If you take the land Spyglass is on, it would seem that  Cypress would inevitably have a Troon-like "out-and-back"    
routing. Assuming of course that we decided to keep each hole close to the water and return the 18th back to the clubhouse.
 
Think for a moment about the loop between the 6th tee to the 10th green. The routing wriggles and writhes with at least 6 changes of direction in a span of 5 holes!  

Cypress might well have been more visually spectacular, but in a golfing sense, The current routing would be tough to improve upon.

My only suggestion - besides formalizing the right side of  #17 into fairway and trimming a few of those trees - would be to move the clubhouse to the right side of the 18th tee. If you jazzed up the current  18th a bit and made it the opening hole, it would go from a "10" on the Doak Scale to an "11."

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I do find interesting the idea that the dunes and ocean holes might be enhanced by the forest holes. Yet, I do think as Bob h said 3,4 and 5 are not that big a deal and a run of holes toward spyglass and back would be so cool. The idea of 14 on the water and the long rock tee at 18 is great too. i have spent many days thinking of how that would make 18 one of the great finishing holes for no other reason than the drama of the walk out to the rock over the wild sea.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

This thread really started as a private discussion with Bob Huntley mostly because I wanted someone closer to CP to give the subject some thought.

Priorities?  Hell, I thought this was all about fantasy!

Anyway, I do seriously believe CP represents one of the most interesting "what ifs?"  Sure, a place like Sand Hills could have produced many different routing plans.  Maybe you could come up with a few in Clementon as well.

But, how often can you offer up a great venue and suggest an alternative routing that is significantly different and perhaps even better?

Take Friars Head or Pacific Dunes.  Can you sketch out something much different than what C&C and Tom Doak came up with that seriously might be better?

I know I can't.  But, the alternative Cypress Point example is staring us in the face.

[TEPaul]

I think Gib's idea is pretty fascinating but he appears to be reconfiguring the present routing only, basically using the exact hole landforms just making #18 the #1 and #17 the 18th. Isn't that correct Gib? I like that! Even if you didn't jazz up #18, as an opening hole it would be far more acceptable as a "get into the round" 365yd opener instead of being perceived as a let down finisher!

Even #18 as it is as a short par 4 is complex and would really require thought right out of the box! I also can't help really paying attention to what Hunter said about #18; "The last hole takes us along a very narrow route.....and while it is short, it is amazingly difficult and is, perhaps, in its contours and landscape, the most beautiful hole in the world."

It would also be an instant mood change, starting at the coast up the hill through the trees and boom to the second tee with the course stretching right and into the trees and also appearing near its end coming out of the trees and to the coast and around it back to the clubhouse.

What would the clubhouse feel like down there to the right of the 18th tee Gib? Is that low lying land or is there a hillside there to place it on? I forget. All I can remember about #18 is standing on the tee and thinking they're asking me to hit a tee shot right into a grove of trees--that's how it looked to me at first!

[Tim_Weiman]

Gib:

Let me ask you to speculate a bit more.

If Mackenzie had been offered the land swap I'm talking about, do you think he would have turned it down?

If so, can you point to any evidence in his writings, other course designs, etc., to support this view?

I, for one, am curious how many people really believe Mackenzie would have turned down such an opportunity.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

From the little I've seen of the land you're talking about I can hardly imagine why Alister Mackenzie would have turned it down.

That's not really the point. The first point is the land he got and used was wonderful and he pulled off a world class golf course on it. The second point is there is very little way of telling at this point how he might have used that land that you're talking about in a golf course overall, so it's so speculative. But maybe it isn't! If somebody could somehow show any of us that land and what a great routing and great golf holes would look like on it compared to what is CPC from both the air and the ground then we could start to tell and compare.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tepaul- I can describe the land between the farthest northwest corner of CPC (approx.14 tee)and the third green of Spyglass. . It is some rolling dunesland with about two or three rolls with a slight angle tilt towards the Pacific. The distance isn't more than 600yds, (i'm guessing). There are curenntly quite a few structures interspreced along the hillside. The third tee at spy is on the dominant ridge overlooking this parcel and one can see the CPC clubhouse directly across to the next major ridge.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

We already accept that Mackenzie did a fabulous job at Cypress Point.

What disappoints me is that here at GCA we still haven't found a way to discuss routing plans in a meaningful or exciting way.

Part of the problem is how much site specific knowledge one would require. Then, too, one would need the skills of folks who do this sort of thing for a living.

So, for those reasons and probably others, discussing alternative routing plans is very hard, perhaps even impossible.  I remember a couple months back someone asked Tom Doak why he didn't route Pacific Dunes to place another green near the water in between the#11 and #4 greens.

Tom responded by poiinting out that there wasn't as much room there as the person raising the issue believed.  But, I suspect the issue was much more complicated.  That is just the nature, or should I say the complexity, of routing a golf course.

I'll stick to my guns when it comes to Cypress Point.  Mackenzie's work was brilliant, but with a little imagination one can envision an alternative that MIGHT have been even better.

Now if only someone closer to Carmel would be motivated enough to fill in some more details......

[TEPaul]

Tim:

I couldn't agree with your last post more about discussing alternative routings. It's disappointing that we can't do more of it but just for the reasons you cite it is very complex to do.

It's not hard to discuss how a hole might be altered, for instance, as you did with Tom Doak and Pacific Dunes. It appears to you though that he may have given you a very simple answer that you suspect may not have been the full story. Maybe not.

But it doesn't take long when discussing how to do an alternate routing on a known golf course or on a known golf course using additional land what a jigsaw puzzle the process can be. Particularly on a close coupled routing when you start changing things you have to start changing some much more than you at first suspect. To me it's a bit like trying to fit rails into posts set in the ground--you have to sometimes go far back from where you are actually working to get everything to fit together properly and even that's a real simple analogy.

If you know Pine Valley at all, I think the alternative I just discussed about the four hole stretch of 12-15 is a very good example. It shows how complicated it can be and the myriad decisions involved. I think what I cited is also exactly what was going through Crump's mind too and may have taken him up to two years to work out and get it the way he wanted it to be.

I agree that it is an interesting thing to do but you do have to recognize the complexities.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I am familiar with the Pine Valley property and can visualize some of what you mentioned.  But, do you think such changes really would have made the course significantly different or better?

As for the Pacific Dunes case, I don't recall who it was that asked TD the question.  My reaction was that it was awfully hard for Tom to do anything but give a simple answer.

That is one thing that separates most people who follow golf architecture as a hobby and those who really know what they are doing.  It is damn easy to visual how one or two holes might be different, but laying out an entire course is a different matter altogether.

[TEPaul]

Tim;

On the Pine Valley stretch I mentioned, I really don't know if it would have been better, although interestingly you can actually look at the stretch and specifically see how it would have been and even probably how it would play! And this is because the hole landforms are almost exactly the same only in another mix! The only one that's very different is the cape hole, but that can be very easily visualized with a little scanning despite the trees in the area it would have been!

So I don't know if it would have been better! What's there is awfully good! What I do know because it's so possible to see on the ground today is how awesome that cape hole could have been! Without question it could have fallen into that extreme rare example of the par skewing type hole of Cypress's #16!! And from the downhill beauty of its setting with the lake it would definitely have also been one of the most photographable holes in the world. But it's actual options could have been so stark and so interesting (maybe even more stark than Cypress's #16)!

So there is that but then the great par 4 #13 may have been sacrificed in one iteration and how tragic would that have been? Had #13 been done as it was, though, then #12 would have been the same as it is too! That only would have left #15 to be something different than what it is!

It's said, that #15 was the only hole in the routing that Crump had felt uncomfortable with the details of before he died! He routed and had it planned the way it is now but his friends said he had not really come to terms with how to make the details of it (another unnreachable par 5) different enough from #7 to his real satisfaction!

Suppose then that he decided to put a shorter, gambling "go/no go" par 5 in the place that #15  now is but just not using the lake carry off the tee? That too could have been an awesome hole! You want to talk about some really interesting and meaningful options, that hole could have had them in spades particularly because another rather sizable cross bunker would probably have been planned about 150 yds from the present green site. Think what that would have meant for all the risk/reward consquences for second and third shot options when you look at the topography of the last 1/3 of that hole and the green site!

That routing mix could have been very interesting and Hugh Alison actually recommended a ball-busting long par 4 in #15's position with the green site about 140yds short of the present green site. The 1920 Advisory Committee nixed that though as too speculative, too expensive and also appearing to go against anything Crump had conceived of too!

Alison's recommendations on that hole are odd though since the routing and the course was basically done and that would appear to have made PV a par 69!

But then there is another little known fact that appears in some of the "remembrances" and that is that although Crump built #16 just as it is today there is speculation that eventually he wanted to push #16's green farther out by the railroad tracks and make that hole into his back nine par 5!!

Just more and really good examples of all the complexities of routing and design. It would have been different but as to what would be better--it's not for me to say!

[Scott_Burroughs]

Someone asked that I check this thread out and I'm glad I did as it has interesting ideas.  I think Tim's question is extremely valid.  

Some of you like the contrast between the forest, dunes, and ocean holes.  One might say that sounds like a copout, because you feel it's sacreligous to criticize CP.  How many of you who said that also say that trees don't belong on a golf course and/or worship the links courses of U.K.?  Don 't get me wrong, I grew up on parkland courses and belong to one.  But I think it's entirely possible that a routing over all of the dunesland possible and even a few more ocean holes could make the course that much better.  Of course, not having played it, I can't make a truly informed comparison, but anything's possible.

Someone also mentioned "overstimulation" if the course was entirely dunesland/ocean holes.  You must not like Pine Valley if you don't like being overstimulated.

All people had to do was check the CP AOTD thread to see the surrounding possible land that could have been used.  I see a lot of dunesland and ocean front.  Adam, as you can see, the extreme NW corner of CP is the 15th tee, not 14 tee:

[Tim_Weiman]

Scott Burroughs:

Thanks very much for posting this picture.  For people unfamiliar with Cypress Point, I hope it helps illustrate the validity of my question.

Of course, some will argue that the picture is one dimensional and doesn't show the topography.  But, I'm still guessing that if we introduced a topo of the area - and someone who knew how to read those things - my question would remain valid.

I wonder if there are any golf architect seminars that might take up the issue as a project, e.g., the Harvard course that I believe  Geoffrey Cornish used to run.

By the way, while I'm sympathetic to those who prefer the contrast of different settings that Cypress Point offers, I don't believe it is "sacreligous" to raise the issue.

Thanks again for posting the photo.

[Donnie Beck]

Does anyone know if Seth Raynor ever started his routing of Cypress before he passed?

[Richard_Goodale]

Isn't it obvious that the answer to Tim's question is an unqualfied YES?  There is no golf course I know of that could not be "better."  In fact, the most interesting courses lie on land that could house a nearly infinite number of good or great routings, as the "Reverse Old Course" thread of Jeremy Glenn's proves so convincingly.  It seems to me that the golf course architect's lot is one of eternal imperfection.  No matter how hard he or she tries, no course will be perfect.

And yet, as two members of this DG and I discovered in an Irish pub in Southampton many months ago, there are many golf courses in this world that in fact ARE perfect, in their own way and in our own minds at various points in time.  They can be improved, but they are still perfect as they are today.  It's kinda like quantum theory, but without the maths......

[TEPaul]

Hmmm, that's very interesting! There very well may not be  perfect golf courses, only some very good ones! Even that may not mean they could be made better!

Tim:

Your question is valid to me. It's the answer to your question I'm thinking about though.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I don't go as far as Rich Goodale, but I am confident that in the case of Cypress Point coming up with something significantly different and MAYBE better would have been possible if Mackenzie was given the real estate towards Spyglass.

To me there are two hurdles:

a) would a different routing make the course SIGNIFICANTLY different?

b) would the alternative possibly be better?

I'm not smart enough to get over the first hurdle with most well known venues.  I can do it with Cypress Point, but not with venues like PV, TOC or Shinnecock to name just a few.

As you have said, getting over the second hurdle takes alot of work, site knowledge, design skills, etc.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()