[Mike Hendren]

I have only played the hole from 150 yards.  From that distance, the "shot value" of the new 5th is equal to, if not better than, that of the 15th at Cypress Point Club, in my sophomoric opinion.  It's just not as dolled up.  

Jack deserves credit for restraint.  With his ego, don't you think he would have loved to put his stamp somewhere on his favorite golf hole in the world?

Mike

[JWL]

Adam
You are correct on a couple of the points you made.  
I didn't mean to indicate that the only clearing done was the single oak behind the new greensite.   There was obviously considerably more clearing done in the ravine to make the back tee function.
I also meant to say that because of the wind and danger on the right side of the green, that there would be a lot of shots pulled left of the left bunker.   That would leave a pitch out of rough "over" the left greenside bunker with the green going away from the play.   I said this to refute the statements somewhat that felt like the hole was an "easy" bogey at worst.   There were several doubles made in the Open because of exactly what I described.    They couldn't hold their pitch shot on the green from over the left bunker.
Anyway, we tried to used restraint and build the green and bunkering to match the style on the existing course rather than introduce something foreign.   Most feel like we accomplished that.
Merry Christmas to all!

[Mike_Golden]

Score two for the Mike's-I birdied the hole the only I"ve played it-3 days after the Open in 2000 from about 145 with the pin in the same place as in the photo-I actually made about a 40 footer from the left side of the green.  I like this hole more than the original #5, which was pretty quirky and didn't seem to fit the rest of the golf course.

[A_Clay_Man]

Jim-  Long left is much worse than just rough. Slightly long there is little rough. And yes, that pitch is very tough due to the severe slope falling away from the bunker. The restraint mentioned intrigues me, or more accurately, what was seriously considered that wasn't as restrained? If you recall.

[Brad Klein]

When I first (and last) saw the hole in May 2004, it looked like there was some collapsing of the ground going on around and in front of the back tee. Has that erosion been stabilized or counteracted?

[TEPaul]

Very interesting discussion about varying architectural arrangements, concepts, shot requirements, shot values, wind direction, recoverability possiblities etc.

If you ask me, despite all that interesting discussion that hole just looks like it sits in its postion on that landform better designed the way it is now!

Despite all that's been said about how to best play the hole the way it is now, something tells me if I stood on that tee I'd try to hit a draw in there anyway. Something good has to be said for a hole that for some odd reason tempts you into really going against its grain!!

To me, that's the ultimate mystery of golf and architecture!

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom P, I find most of the cool stuff(in life too) to be counter-intuitive, just as you ellude to.

I didn't know about the errosion issues on the ravine's side. Will they have to extend the bridge?  I haven't seen how the house(s) look. Anybody?

One real difference between the old and the new hole is the intimacy and therefore the flow. Since the current back teeing ground (187) is only afforded to the top 1%, that walk across that bridge is nowhere near as intimate as the old teeing ground, just to the left of #4.

Another is the wind. On the old hole it was only a factor when it was a down, or into, condition (rare). Protected sides. Now it's more of across issue?? The name of the cove is Stillwater, on a day-in day-out basis, wind is nae. Or, naegligible. In the winter, when the wind is from the south (just before a storm) then it would be a cross factor.

 On those few circumstance days, hitting one's shot towards the hazard right, would be thrilling.

[Forrest Richardson]

I was not impressed with the new 5th — but it is because I had such high expectations. I am more impressed with it now that I realize the logistics that had to be overcome to get it done. I applaud the change, even though something like this could probably always be slightly improved.

—

An interesting tid-bit: Right after the 5th was completed I visited Pebble and walked to the 5th tee to get a look. It was late in the day. A lady was walking her dog and came up to me. "Awful, isn't it?" she said. I challenged her and she went into a long tyrant about how everything the Pebble Beach Companies does is aimed at profit. "This plaque [that which touts the new 5th as a final chapter in Pebble's originally intended design] is a bunch of crap," she explained. "This is simply about money and greed...there used to be one house here and now there are two!" she was a resident and, even though the result was an ocean-side hole, her contention was that it was a dollars and cents decision. She even noted the routing with the awkward back-track to No. 6 tees, saying, "Someone's going to get killed because they crammed an extra lot over there...the least they could have done was to just create one lot...not two!"

—

I'm not sure I agree with her summary of the economics. Any thoughts on this?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()