News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
10 Under at Spyglass?!
« on: February 09, 2006, 05:56:14 PM »
Simply unbelieveable.

Brian_Sleeman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2006, 05:57:43 PM »
No lift, clean, and place either, unlike many other years.

Was that the case last year when Phil posted 62?

Tom Huckaby

Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2006, 06:07:11 PM »
Good god... and it wasn't one of the big bombers, but apparently short-hitting (relatively) Luke Donald...

There was a time when that was a very long, very brutal course.  It still is for us yokels.

They do play a very, very different game.

TH

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2006, 06:55:41 PM »
That is incredible.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2006, 07:00:28 PM »
It should be noted that the weather conditions are/were about as good as it is ever going to get.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2006, 08:49:47 PM »
Forget Luke. Lefty Mike Weir shot 9 under at Pebble!
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Nate Golomb

Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2006, 12:59:11 AM »
There's hope for us short hitters yet...Donald only averaged 270 and putted lights out, only needing 24 putts while hitting 83% GIR...that's golfing your ball on that course. And shoot, Weir only averaged 258 off the tee and had 25 putts...There's still hope! Would love to see one of these guys win it...

Jim Nugent

Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2006, 03:50:02 AM »
It should be noted that the weather conditions are/were about as good as it is ever going to get.

Global warming ain't all bad.

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2006, 04:57:50 AM »
I agree with Huck -  the 4-5 times I've played Spyglass it has seemed like the longest course in the world to this 10ish handicapper.  I just checked PGAtour.com.  It has Spyglass listed as 68xx yards for the pros.  Adam/anybody, is this right?  Seems short to me?

JC

A_Clay_Man

Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2006, 06:17:21 AM »
JC- Seems right to me, but I'm no Matt Ward. Total Yardages, slope and rating are like greek to me.

I will point out what I mentioned in the "My Home course piece" about the extra  gravity at Spy. Heck, for the first few times I golfed there I was certain the placed was mis-marked.

While it isnt lift clean and cheat, it needs to be pointed out that the canvas is likey still receptively soft. That's not to diminish Luke's play. He's certainly is capable of going extremely low. I suspect (because I havent seen the tube yet) the man must've had one of those great putting rounds. Plus, they really do not tuck the pins for this event and have to keep them there, for three days.

Jim Nugent

Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2006, 07:15:06 AM »

While it isnt lift clean and cheat, it needs to be pointed out that the canvas is likey still receptively soft. That's not to diminish Luke's play. He's certainly is capable of going extremely low. I suspect (because I havent seen the tube yet) the man must've had one of those great putting rounds.

Adam -- I read he took 24 putts.  And that is while hitting 15 greens in regulation.  He may have sunk a wedge shot for eagle as well.    

JohnV

Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2006, 09:01:55 AM »
Donald had 24 putts and from I saw on Golf Central last night, he had two putts that hung on the lip.  It could have been a 60 very easily.

Eric Johnson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2006, 09:49:45 AM »
I agree with Huck -  the 4-5 times I've played Spyglass it has seemed like the longest course in the world to this 10ish handicapper.  I just checked PGAtour.com.  It has Spyglass listed as 68xx yards for the pros.  Adam/anybody, is this right?  Seems short to me?

JC

Jonathan,

During my time at Spy, the Tour never setup the course to it's full length.  And as Adam stated, the hole locations are fairly benign.  This setup addresses (my opinion) a potential pace of play issue for the Pro-Am.
Eric

A_Clay_Man

Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2006, 02:59:20 PM »
Eric, That is what they think the justification is, but obviously things are not speedy in the current set-up.

They should take a chance and have a normal set-up. 6 easy 6 reasonable and 6 hard. It wont translate to 7 hour rounds, it may even pick up the pace since many more ams will be out of the hole sooner. :o

 Most, and reiterate most, of the ams are very good about picking up when they are no longer a potential assist in their team score. But there are a few stuborn souls who need to putt out on every single one of the 54 holes.

Part of me understands this was Bing's party, and the pros were not the highlight, no matter how much they think they are. Big business networking is now the party's primary premise.

Pete Lavallee

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2006, 03:54:51 PM »
Adam,

I believe the 6 easy, 6 medium, 6 hard is as exstinct as the persimmon driver. Regular Tour setups consist of 18 hard these days.
"...one inoculated with the virus must swing a golf-club or perish."  Robert Hunter

Eric Johnson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2006, 05:48:31 PM »
Eric, That is what they think the justification is, but obviously things are not speedy in the current set-up.

They should take a chance and have a normal set-up. 6 easy 6 reasonable and 6 hard. It wont translate to 7 hour rounds, it may even pick up the pace since many more ams will be out of the hole sooner. :o

 Most, and reiterate most, of the ams are very good about picking up when they are no longer a potential assist in their team score. But there are a few stuborn souls who need to putt out on every single one of the 54 holes.

Part of me understands this was Bing's party, and the pros were not the highlight, no matter how much they think they are. Big business networking is now the party's primary premise.

Adam,

I'll try to dig through my files and locate the AT&T hole location sheets for my time there.  I recall them being in the same zone every year (1996-2000).

Looking at 18 today, it was darn close to where Payne hit his 5 iron to about 18" in 1999 as darkness fell on the third round.  Going through the locations I remember:

1: center back
2: center
3: middle right?
4: usually back but, one year (1998?) above the tier. OUCH!
5: back right
6: center back
7: mid-left
8: mid-right
9: back left
10: ?  I think back right
11: right
12: frontish-center
13: back right and left
14: right (over lake and bunker)
15: right of center
16: left of center
17: usually middle toward front, 1999 was front above the approach.
18: same as today, back center.

I'll try to verify.  Most of the locations were also determined by the weather forecast.  The golf course, as you know, can be setup much more difficult than it is for the AT&T.  

That would be an interesting exercise....setting up the hole locations to bring out the most in Spyglass' design.

Out for now.

Eric

Scott Seward

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:10 Under at Spyglass?!
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2006, 07:43:17 PM »
Just measured Spy last year - that 6900+ figure is correct. Future plans call for new back tees on 11 and 14.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back