[Michael Dugger]

This is kind of off topic, but did anyone happen to catch that First Tee tournament held at Pebble a couple of weeks ago?

The one in conjuction with the Champions Tour.

Miller, speaking as a group played the par five on the back.  Not 18 but 13 or 14, I think?

Miller claimed that back in his college days he birdied that hole something ridiculous like 13 times in a row!!!



In a row.....can this be real?  Has anyone ever heard of such dominance over a hole?

[Gary_Nelson]

I'd just like to have the cash and free time to play Pebble Beach 13 times in a row... regardless of score.  

[igrowgrass]

Play it as it lies?  Isn't that was golf is about, not all kicks are good bounces.  Thats golf.  Play it as it lies...

[John_Cullum]

As far as fairness goes, I can go along with Pat Mucci where he speaks of "reasonableness v unreasonableness" of a hole; however, I don't see where it matters in match play.

In stroke play, I think players should be able to have a reasonable opportunity to make par on a hole, and nobody should have to go back home and have to explain why they shot some ugly score out of character for their ability. Club pro's are especially sensitive to this.

In match play, any set up goes. All you need to do is score better than your opponent on the particular hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I wonder if many don't get caught up with the general term,
"fair" ?  Perhaps, the word "unreasonable" would be more appropriate.


Golf is blessed by random events, but when a design feature penalizes a well intended and executed shot, as a pattern, one has to question its merit.

The green is designed to reward a well executed shot.  The players were hitting it in the wrong spot.

You missed the words, "as a pattern"[/color]

A hole that plays well from one angle, its original or intended angle, might play poorly from a different angle, and if that's the case, one has to question the alteration of the angle of attack and the lack of the retention of the original design intent/integrity.

The angle of attack is the same since the course opened.  No changes for the Ryder Cup.
I wasn't solelly referencing # 17 but other holes where angles of attack off the tee were changed.

Wasn't a US Open decided by a tee shot on the 18th hole that took a bad, but patterned kick ?[/color]

A new angle of attack, combined with the LZ features, could be a contradiction with the intended design of the hole, and as such, an unreasonable design, generally producing what are perceived as "unfair" results.

I believe that each situation must be carefully observed and evaluated, and that the statement Miller made relating to not being "fair", might be right on target.

Miller's "unfair" statement was talking about players hitting to a 15' landing zone around the pin and the ball bouncing and running over the green.  He went on to say the proper approach would be a high cut to the center of the green and let the ball run to the pin.

There is the possibility that Miller is correct, and many of you, off base.

The shot required is 200 yards, 20' uphill, high cut to the center of the green.  In my opinion, that shot should be in a Ryder Cup player's bag.

That equals a margin of error of 1.25 %, without taking into account the uphill nature of the shot, wind, and atmospheric conditions.  I'm not so sure that under Ryder Cup pressure, that even the best players in the world can routinely hit that shot.[/color]

[Jason McNamara]

I mean, really, would you rather listen to Steve Melnyk or the happily departed Curtis Strange?  

Or Lanny?  

Jason

ps.  I like Judy Rankin too.

[Gary_Nelson]

This forum seems to love the Redan green.  Hit a slight draw and land on the front right part of the green to get close to a back left pin placement.

#17 at Oakland Hills requires a high cut to the center of the green to get to a back right pin placement.

I see no difference in these two holes.  Both require a certain shot.  Hit it and you are rewarded.  Miss it and you are penalized.  Is that "unfair"?  I think not.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()