new tee at Pebble's 17th?

[PThomas]

the "dream Monterey" course dredged this one up:  supposedly elevating the tee on this hole was being considered, but Arnold nixed it.

if you owned it, would you do it?  

[Ted Kramer]

the "dream Monterey" course dredged this one up:  supposedly elevating the tee on this hole was being considered, but Arnold nixed it.

if you owned it, would you do it?  

Yes. No question about it.

-Ted

[Ted Kramer]

And just for the record I'm generally not a big fan of elevated tees . . .

-Ted

[THuckaby2]

Absolutely no way - Arnie's right in this one.

The only way to get any benefit would be if you could see the entirety of the green.  To do that, you'd need a tee that is pretty damn high - so high that it would block the INCREDIBLE, INSPIRING view down #3 fairway, down 17, to the ocean.

No way you want to do that - the benefit on 17 is hugely outweighed by the negative effect on 3.

It would also look really stupid.

So sayeth Tourist Tom.  Sorry Ted.  

[ForkaB]

Damn tooting!   But I'd be sure to make it elevated enough (200 ft?) so you could get a nice panoramic view of the course.

[David Ober]

Damn tooting!   But I'd be sure to make it elevated enough (200 ft?) so you could get a nice panoramic view of the course.

YES!

And you could ride some kind of vehicle up to the summit where you would tee off -- like a FUNICULAR, just like they have at Industry Hills in the City of Industry, California!!!

[ForkaB]

David

Great minds think alike!  I had Industry Hills (and the Hyde Street cable car) in my mind when I wrote that.

[THuckaby2]

David:

I am both proud and ashamed to say I have ridden said funicular many times.  I cut my competitive golfing teeth at Industry Hills.  Many high school tournaments there.  Ahhhh, the memories... nearly all very sad.

So OK, as long as we're going this route, screw Arnie.  I'm now with you all.  However, I'd also add curling slides down the sides so that the adventurous could have a fun way down.

TH

[Ted Kramer]

Absolutely no way - Arnie's right in this one.

The only way to get any benefit would be if you could see the entirety of the green.  To do that, you'd need a tee that is pretty damn high - so high that it would block the INCREDIBLE, INSPIRING view down #3 fairway, down 17, to the ocean.

No way you want to do that - the benefit on 17 is hugely outweighed by the negative effect on 3.

It would also look really stupid.

So sayeth Tourist Tom.  Sorry Ted.  

Isn't #17 tee left on the 3rd green? And isn't the tee flush against some shrubs? Why would the tee have to any higher than 5 feet or so? I'm pretty sure the shrubs are at least that tall? I don't remember them messing up my view of anything . . .

-Ted

[Andy Hughes]

Never been to Pebble Beach...is the goal of adding an elevated tee to improve visibility of the green? To make it easier to hold shots on the green? To improve the view somehow?

[PThomas]

Andy - I believe it would be  to help (?) the view, as the entire hole is flat...

[Ted Kramer]

Never been to Pebble Beach...is the goal of adding an elevated tee to improve visibility of the green? To make it easier to hold shots on the green? To improve the view somehow?

The hole is nothing short of boring from the tee; It gives you no sense whatsoever of the magnificient piece of property that you are standing on. My purpose for suggesting an elevated tee would be to put the player in touch with his/her surroundings. . .to offer a golfer the experience of hitting a long iron towards a tough green against the back drop of the Pacific ocean. I'm not sure that a few feet of elevation would make the hole much easier. . .My suggestion is based solely on asthetics.

-Ted

[THuckaby2]

Ted - 17 tee is slightly left of 3 green.  Directly behind 3 green is a road and some tall shrubs, protecting the property behind said shrubs.  So looking directly at the green and to the right, yes the view is of the shrubs.

Ahhhhh, but that is not all one sees, far from it.  Standing in 3 fairway, one can and does look straight down the length of 17, toward the ocean.  I have a great picture of exactly that.  

Put an elevated tee on 17 - one high enough to make a difference in the view esthetics on that hole - and this view from 3 is eliminated.  That would be an awful shame.

TH

[Ted Kramer]

Ted - 17 tee is slightly left of 3 green.  Directly behind 3 green is a road and some tall shrubs, protecting the property behind said shrubs.  So looking directly at the green and to the right, yes the view is of the shrubs.

Ahhhhh, but that is not all one sees, far from it.  Standing in 3 fairway, one can and does look straight down the length of 17, toward the ocean.  I have a great picture of exactly that.  

Put an elevated tee on 17 - one high enough to make a difference in the view esthetics on that hole - and this view from 3 is eliminated.  That would be an awful shame.

TH

Ok, I'm not a builder and might not have a great sense of proportions but I'll ask this anyway . . .

Would a 5ft high tee make the green and Ocean visable from the 17th tee? And would that 5ft rise really obscure a view of that same green and ocean from 150 yards away?

And even if it did obscure this view from #3, I'd give a lot more weight to improving the 17th hole itself than worrying about obsrtucting the view from the 3rd fairway, especially considering the views that are about to come . . .

-Ted

[A_Clay_Man]

This idea is so bad I'm shocked it hasn't been implemented sooner.

[THuckaby2]

Ted - as proven in the thread about Bandon, my skill at estimating elevation distances is as good as my skill at playing the ehru.

So I have no answer there.  All I do know is that it would take quite a high tee to give one a decent view of 17 green - remember it is 170-200 yards away.  And said high tee would block the view from 3 fairway.  I can't put that in numbers of feet, sorry.

TH

[Ted Kramer]

This idea is so bad I'm shocked it hasn't been implemented sooner.

I'm curious about your opinion.
Would you mind expanding on your post?
Do you like the 17th hole?
Do you think that it is "one to look forward too"?
Is it a memorable hole?
Would anyone give a rip about it if the history wasn't attached?
Do you think that it can be improved?

Any details regarding your thoughts on the subject would be great.

Thanks,
Ted

[ForkaB]

Tom

If you made the tee high enough, as I have suggested, you could just bore a tunnel through the middle to retain your view from the 3rd green.  We could call it Huckaby's Bore.

[Mike Hendren]

This idea is so bad I'm shocked it hasn't been implemented sooner.

 

While we're at it, let's dig up the existing tee at the 17th hole at Sand Hills and bring back the upper tee.  It's all about visibility, right?

Mike

[THuckaby2]

Tom

If you made the tee high enough, as I have suggested, you could just bore a tunnel through the middle to retain your view from the 3rd green.  We could call it Huckaby's Bore.

I'm getting a lot of things named after me lately.
But Huckaby's Bore is ME already.  My Dad's friends'
would give me that name.

TH

[Ted Kramer]

One more question . . .
I don't remember the bunkers in front of the green being very high. Why would the tee need to be elevated so much in order to see the green. Can't you usually see a green over a relatively flat stretch of 190 yards or so? Wouldn't 3 feet be enough to change one's perception?

If a tee needed to be built so high as to look goofy and really stand out, I would change my tune. My opinion in favor of an elevated tee was really based on a what I imagined to be a small change in elevation . . .

-Ted

[Bob_Huntley]

Ted,

With respect, I cannot see how a mound five feet high could possibly improve the aescetics. As it is, especially from the back tees, the flatness of the hole demands a shot of the highest order. An elevated tee would make the shot much easier.

Bob

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

This idea is beyond rational thought, therefore I am scared they will do it.

[A_Clay_Man]

Ted, I think you are way off when you describe the hole as

The hole is nothing short of boring from the tee;

The reasons you are way off could be chaulked-up to 1) Some pre-concieved notion. 2) Elevated tees are not the pat answer, as you your self said you are usually not a fan of them. So why here?

Not being able to see 2/3's of that green is one of the great aspects of the hole. When you do get to fire at that leftside, you are never certain exactly where your ball is, until you get up there. That uncertainty is what most modern golfers cannot stand, and is reason enough to leave it alone.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted,

With respect, I cannot see how a mound five feet high could possibly improve the aescetics. As it is, especially from the back tees, the flatness of the hole demands a shot of the highest order. An elevated tee would make the shot much easier.

Bob

Bob,

The point about the power of collaboration has been raised in a couple of threads. You have always struck me as someone with a reasoned approach to things and your familiarity with the course makes me think that I could certainly be wrong on this . . .
So lets just say that if we were a collaborative team working to answer the question originally posted, I would be likely tp put my ego aside and go along with your thinking . . .

-Ted