[A_Clay_Man]

If i'm not mistaken, an in-depth analysis of the new fifth at Pebble has never really occurred.

Thanks to MWP and his posting of these pics, perhaps we can now discuss this hole.



When the hole was first under construction, my minds eye saw the challenge of a draw out over the cove, then Jack put in a cut green. It blew my mind.
 Now, I may have some pre disposed bias, because I had so much respect for that old hole. With it's tough green contours and the intrusion of trees from the hazard left, that hole had my number.
The new hole has but a fraction of the fear, or the juices associated with that fear. There have been quite a few aces on the new hole. I wonder how many the old, gave up in her 75+ years?

For those that complain about (or lack respect for) the inland holes at Pebble, di this new addition improve the course? make it more or less difficult?  

[Tony_Chapman]

Adam - The only time I played the old hole was on Tiger Woods Golf, so I can't really compare.

Likes: 1) I thought the hole was good enough, but is probably the weakest short hole on the course. 2) It appeared as if it had "been there" for awhile.

Dislikes: 1) The silly walk back to the sixth tee was my major gripe. It seemed like about 200 yards or something.

[THuckaby2]

Great topic, Adam.

Here's how I see the new #5.

Positives:

- better flow.  The old hole always seemed kinda jarring... you find your way down to the sea for 1-2-3, play along it for 4, then turn away from it for 5, only to go back to it for 6.  The new 5, with the back tee right behind 4 green, just seems to flow so much better.

- shot along ocean is just prettier than shot up along the trees.

- it's how the course was intended to be.


Negatives:

- as you say, a hole screaming out for a green bunkered and contoured to require a draw is built the other way.  This makes it a lot more playable, but oh what might have been.... it could have rivaled the other truly great par 3s on the peninsula.  As it is, it really doesn't.

- long walk back to #6 tee.

Overall:

I still say the positives outweigh the negatives, but then I was never a big fan of the old #5, and it puzzles me when a few on here wax poetic about it.  Dog leg par threes just ain't right.  Yeah, it was tough, and yeah, it was quirky.  It just wasn't a very good golf hole.  So for me what's there now is a net improvement.

But overall assessment here is always going to turn on how one felt about the old hole.  If you loved it, the new one sucks.  If you didn't, the new one is an improvement.

One thing's for sure, I don't think anyone would call the new #5 a "great" golf hole.  Good yes, great no.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom, I'm puzzled too. My unique slant (psychosis) is that I hated the old hole. But only because it tested me where I was deficient. It retrospect my hate turns to love because it tested me where I was deficient. How screwed am I?

I fondly remember that deep fronting bunker. Mostly because it was were I had determined to be "my place" to miss the shot. Figuring I could make a sandy par, easier than challenging the ravine left.

On the new hole, a prudent play short left, is  not likely to bring bogie into play.

From a caddies perspective, the new is the bomb. No more climb, just hand off the driver, and fore caddie under the trees on 6.

[A_Clay_Man]

[THuckaby2]

You're not screwy at all, Adam.  Or at least if you are, I am also... I have quite a few "nemesis" golf holes that while playing them, say "God I hate this hole" because it kicks my ass.  But that hate turns to love when describing the hole outside of play.  You hate it because it's a round ruiner... you love it because it is such a challenge.

The OLD #12 at Bayonet was like that for me.  Accent on the WAS.  

In any case great point re caddie improvement - #5 PB is WAY easier the new way.  And hell, for walker/carriers (as if that ever occurs) it wouldn't be a big deal... leave clubs down by 5 green, take driver up, collect on way down fairway.

Also good point re "easy bogie" on new hole... just bump one out to the left and for a good player it's 50/50 up and down, so 4 max, 3 likely.  For lesser player 4 becomes pretty easy also.  ANY score was possible on the old hole, and there really was no way for an easy bogie, unless you were a good sand player.  Green was a LOT tougher also.

So the hole was a stone bitch for me also - requiring a hook just isn't a good thing for this fader and with no place to miss, well... round ruiner it was.

BUT.. I don't look back on it with the respect/love as I do for other holes that ate me up, because for me the requirements were silly/stupid/unfair.  Hooks around trees on a par three... I just never got over the "goofy golf" feeling on it.  And I'd say the same thing if it bent the other way and required a slice.

TH

[THuckaby2]

How many of the trees behiond the green should be removed?

The old number five was a skyline.

What?  The old number five had a grove of trees behind it for the most part.  It was skyline if you flubbed one and had a pitch up the hill, yes.  But skyline from the tee?  I don't get that.

But that being said, removing the trees directly behind the new #5 would be a good thing.  Methinks it would improve 6 also.  But would it leave protection for those putting on #5 green, from rocket slices from 6 tee?

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Dr. Bill,
As I recall it, it was mostly blind, hidden behind the bunker lip. Maybe a teeny tiny portion was visible on the far left?

Tom, While a hook seemed needed, a straight ball worked just as well. I suppose if I was a hookenfokker I'd be deathly afraid of over cooking my hookenfokkin' self.

[THuckaby2]

Adam - ok sure a straight ball worked, but the margin for error on that was nearly zilch given how tightly it would have to hug the trees.  Pull it a foot and plop, down she went.

You know another thing that sucked about the old #5?  Cart path was right in play, caranging any shot missed right off into oblivion either over the fence or up against it if you were lucky.

I love the non-word "carang", btw.

 

[Andy Doyle]

I never played the old #5, but I did play the new hole this past April - I thought it was a great hole.  Particularly with the hole positioned in the back right and the wind from the right, the "cut" green design makes perfect sense to me.  To get it close you are tempted to either cut the ball into the wind or to hang it out over the cove and hope the wind brings it back; both shots having significant risk (not to mention the drama of the seaside cliffs).

When I played they were rebuilding the back tee boxes, so we had to play from the front tees.  My tee shot was tense enough with a wedge, I can only imagine how difficult this hole is with a 4 or 5 iron.  I don't think it's a guaranteed par if you play it safe, short and left with that back right hole location.

AD

[THuckaby2]

Andy - it's never gonna be a guaranteed par going left unless one is a short game genius.  But it IS pretty much a guaranteed bogey.  NOTHING was guaranteed on the goofy old hole - that's the point.

In any case I do prefer the new one, but pretty much because I didn't like the old, not because I like the new that much.

So I can't go along with calling it a great hole... There's just too much easy bailout, and man I can't help but think how truly great it would be if the bunker was on the left, such that a fade wouldn't work so easily...thereby inviting a draw out over the cove, as Adam says...

But what the heck, it is pretty darn good as it is.

And yes, it is a tough shot from the back tee.  But one has SO much room on the left, well... a miss right is a pretty bad tactical/functional error.  

It would REALLY be scary if the green/bunkering were re-done to invite the draw...

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Andy makes a good point. That back right pin is a puckerer.

[THuckaby2]

Andy makes a good point. That back right pin is a puckerer.

Sure it is.
But think about a back right pin if the green was re-done like you and I seem to want....

Pucker would not be a sufficient word for it.

 

TH

[Andy Doyle]

Tom:

I guess you have a more penal mindset than me (make sure I spelled that correctly  ).  Bogey seems to be an adequate penalty if you successfully play the safe route.  But I guess beauty is in the eye of the fader.

AD

[THuckaby2]

Tom:

I guess you have a more penal mindset than me (make sure I spelled that correctly  ).  Bogey seems to be an adequate penalty if you successfully play the safe route.  But I guess beauty is in the eye of the fader.

AD

 

Well hell, I don't dig too many brutally hard golf holes.  It just seems to me that's one thing that my personal fave, always defended against heathen naysayers Pebble Beach is lacking:  a real ass-tightening, any score can be made, par three.... like exists up the road at its neighbor Cypress.  Turn that green around and you might have it.  And it wouldn't be goofy golf like the old #5.

It is a silly quibble, yes.  But for whatever reason I just can't help but think what might have been on #5, if the play out over the cove became more enticing.  It's just so easy to play away from it now..

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

One aspect is the old tagline on PB. Score early. That mindest is prevalent and really causes the better player to be aggresive on this one shotter, since they know they are going to have to hold on, through those controversial inland holes.

[Mike Benham]

The old #5 was not a good golf hole, claustraphopic, squeezed in between some homes, it amazed me that it was able to survive as long as it did ...

I like the new #5 (of course I birdie in the one occasion that I did play it ...).  You must play if from the back tee on the other side of the creek though ...

I agree that it could be better, the trees removed on the left give more the impression of a forest course then a seaside hole and the green could have been better.  

In true Pebble fashion, the green should have been smaller although the current shape had the opportunity to be a reverse redan if they were to elevate the front portion of the green.

Ps:  the old 5th was not a skyline green.  Uphill where you could not see the putting surface yes, but the hills of the Del Monte Forest towered in the background.

[Andy Doyle]

a real ass-tightening, any score can be made, par three.... like exists up the road at its neighbor Cypress.

TH

Maybe if they could move the tees on #7 back 150 yards?

AD

[THuckaby2]

Sure - build a floating holodeck-like thing out over the bay for the tee... You need George Jetson aircars to get to it....
now that WOULD be cool.  

 

[paul cowley]

as a greenskeeper there ,the left ravine on old #5 was the place to go for early morning ball hawking.....never failed ,good balls too!

can't imagine the new being as good.

[Rick Shefchik]

I'm even par on #5 after two rounds. I like it.

But I agree it is not the great hole it could have been. Left is the way to go; I got up and down once from that side, and two-putted from the left side of the green the other time. I recall the green as being rather flat and featureless. You wouldn't have to redesign the hole to improve it, if you could just build a little more left-to-right slope into the putting surface. That way, a miss to the left would be a real tough par, whereas the proper shot would have to flirt with the gunch on the right.

[A_Clay_Man]

Paul,
 One of the caddies met his demise to the right of the new fifth, hawking for balls.

Rick,
The green isn't too flat, just left of the center is where the most slope is, from left to right and back to front.

[Jim Johnson]

Adam,
I have yet to play Pebble, so am not real familiar with the individual holes.
Did the landscape at this particular hole ever offer the opportunity to build a redan-type of par-3? Not sure what the yardage is, perhaps it's too short to contemplate this.
JJ

[JWL]

Four minor points of interests concerning the new #5 hole:

The 12th and 17th hole are both protected by bunkers on the left side and open on the right side.  
The lay of the land down to the sea was from left down to right.  
The two above points were instrumental in determining the left to right orientation of the green.    The wind off the sea on the right determined that a cut into that wind would be the safest shot.   Any shot that was pulled or hooked would bring the back left bunker into play for most pin placements as the green runs from left to right.

Clearing of trees on the hole was to be as minimal as possible.  There was a large old california oak with branches draping to the ground and some large limbs broken, that was almost exactly where the back section of the green is now located.   It required some very special permission to finally remove the tree.
The new green is almost exactly to the square foot the same size as the old #5 green.

Because the USGA allowed the rough to grow long close on the left side of the green, against the recommendation of Jack, the 5th hole played the most difficult in relation to par in the last US Open at Pebble Beach.

[A_Clay_Man]

Jim- Thanks for your insider insight. One minor quibble with your assertion that a pull ends up in the back bunker, is only true for the better player, who only pulls it slightly. The majority of "us" have to look much closer to the fence.

The green doesn't preclude the draw, as matter of fact, the best shot I saw there, had a slight draw to a middle center left pin, off the hybrid club of Stephan Toldeo, from the back tee.

Also, there was a bunch of eucalyptis trees removed from the ravine, also, I had heard there were other findings down there, as well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()