Guess what the Curtis Cuppers thought ...

[Tom Jefferson]

Hmmmm.....faulty memory!  316 yards for #6.
Check all the yardages at www.curtiscup.org.

Tom

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick Mucci:

The bet stands for you as well.  And I've seen your VERY proficient wedge game in action - you truly are very, very good at those shots.

I still don't think you get down in less than 10 shots in 4 tries from 80 yards, and I'll put you at the easiest angle, coming in from the right.  Back pin.

OK, so maybe it's not the killer I have it as in my mind... but pussycat?  Not difficult?  Please.  That is one tough approach - the picture says it all.  The green is tiny narrow, anything right means 5 at best, anything left means 6... and you can indeed PUTT off the green and down to the right pretty damn easily with a back pin... I've seen it done!

BTW, I agree with every other word in your post - I too love 11-12-13.  You're just remember too much success and too little failure on 6.  All it takes is one seemingly good shot rolling down the right bank, as Bill McBride described... then forever more you will have greater respect for this maddening golf hole!

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I think you have to look at the hole in the context of an intended drive and an unintended drive, and the results thereof.

With an intended drive I think you'd agree that you're presented with a fairly benign approach shot.

Hence par, or birdie is likely.

An unintended drive leaves one with a more difficult approach shot, but, in the context of the good or great player, I don't see the overwhelming difficulty in the shot.

And, I view the results of an unintended drive in the context of a par, not a birdie.

If a good to great player hits it left, a lofted iron approach should provide a reasonable chance to make par, perhaps an occassional birdie or bogie as well.

I just don't see the high numbers you reference, from good to great players, whereas, I can see those numbers at holes like # 3, # 4, # 11, # 13 and others.

I don't think a hole has to be diabolically difficult in order to present an interesting challenge, and # 6 would seem to fit that mold by my standards.

[Tom Huckaby]

No Patrick, I think once again it would benefit both of us if you would read all posts rather than just the latest, or maybe read what someone else writes rather than what you want or expect to hear.

 

I firmly believe - and have now said four times - that even from the preferred angle in - after a successful drive - that remains a maddening pitch.  My suggested bet occurs from the EASIEST angle in.

So I absolutely do NOT agree that with any "intended drive" other than one ON THE GREEN you are left with a "fairly benign approach shot."

I'm going to be there in February 2007 it looks like.  Come join me.  Win the bet and all drinks are on me.

In any case, I also did not opine on whether a hole has to be diabolically difficult in order to present an interesting challenge - of course it doesn't.  And I also never said good or great players would make HIGH numbers on the hole (although I sure see us normal players doing so!).  

My sole contention here was against Goodale calling it a "pussycat."  It's not.  It's not diabolically difficult for great players - of course.  But it's more difficult than a hole of it's length ought to be, even for them - and I'll take that to my grave.

 

BTW I trust you know the golf hole, but reviewing this might help.  Sure one can't always trust descriptions of golf holes done on official course websites - lots of marketing involved there - but it is illustrative to me how they describe the approach.  I just don't see this as being a pussycat for anyone, and yes I would include you and I have the utmost respect for your game.

http://www.bandondunesgolf.com/pacific_hole6.cfm

One more thing - this might all turn on what one means by "pussycat".  I play plenty of very benign holes on which I'd put you at 150 and take the UNDER on the 10 strokes in 4 tries bet.  Flat, not much in the way, nothing really to them.  So that's what I mean by the term.   And there's no way the approach into 6 at PD is in the same universe with these.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

"Pussycats" are in the eye of the beholder.

But, into the prevailing wind, # 11 and # 13 seem to provide far greater challenge, with far greater consequences for mis-plays.

With a good nights rest, I'll take my chances from 80 yards.
I play alot of funny or ginky shots, usually low controlled one's into the wind from that distance, and while I can hit errant shots, my shot pattern at that distance is fairly tight.

February in Bandon is doubtful as warmer climates hold greater appeal for those trapped in winter's grip in the north in January and February.

Have fun and let me know what your on site research reveals.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

I added a bit whilst you were posting... but it seems we are closer than it would have seemed.  Yes, this is indeed in the eye of the beholder and really does turn on what one means by the term.  

I'd still like to see this bet play out though... and hell I KNOW how it works out for me - bet the over without a doubt.  I just would be very interested in how a truly good wedge player fares from that easiest angle.  I still like the over.  But perhaps I too need to gain some more respect.

In any case, of course 11 and 13 are greater challenges in terms of raw score.  But 6 remains no pussycat!

TH

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Pat, lets not go out of a limb here. If you miss 11 and 13 you are either in a severe bunker, on the beach or swimming with the sea turtles. 6 is a series of wonderfully difficult finesse 2nd shots. The wind, distance and angles are the variables. I think with minimal or winter wind you can blow it up to the base of the green and have a fairly easy shot. The wind is not impacting your pitch either in benign conditions. I still think you have a heck of a tough shot from the left though. Throw a 3 to 4 club summer wind and that hole is as tough as a short hole can be, nothing withstanding 14 on trails. I think Brad called them 300 yard par 4's that cannot be hit in 2.

[cary lichtenstein]

I too birdied #6, but I think it's a good hole.

[ed_getka]

#12 would be my guess without reading any replies.

[ed_getka]

I should pay attention to detail. Missed the risk/reward part. I certainly wouldn't call the approach to #6 benign for my level of game. More bogeys than pars for me, but few if any blowup numbers on that hole. A fun short 4.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tiger,

A 3 or 4 club wind makes a 2 foot putt difficult.

[Jim Nugent]

I still don't think you get down in less than 10 shots in 4 tries from 80 yards, and I'll put you at the easiest angle, coming in from the right.  Back pin.

TH

Tom, your bet is that we have to make birdie half the time, and par the other half, from 80 yards out.  On what hole would even pro's do that?  They barely get up and down from greenside sand traps half the time.  

Does anyone in the world make two from 80 yards half the time, on any hole?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Nugent,

That's what I was trying to say to Tom.

I indicated that the approach from head on is benign, but, Tom made the quantum leap to getting up and down 50 % of the time and making par the other 50 % of the time, and as you said, not even the best players in the world are capable of that.

To make his point, Tom's structured his criterion based upon an improbable, if not an impossible task.

One could create that same test at the first hole at NGLA, except, instead of being 80 yards off the green, you could start 5 yards off the green, and safely take the over.

With the greens at 11 or more, I'll let you start ON the green and I'll take the over.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Jim/Patrick:

You really think the best pros won't get down in two at least half the time from 80 yards on a "pussycat" approach shot?

You must not watch much pro golf.  I'd say if it is the pussycat Rich says and Pat seems to agree with, 3/4 of the time would be expected.

In any case, Patrick's last statement is what I am getting at about 6 green.  I really think it is comparable in approach difficulty to wild ones like #1 NGLA.  You both may disagree, but that's what I was getting at.

BTW, Patrick, you've disappointed me in two ways here:

1.  I thought you really were a great wedge player;
2. I never thought you'd wuss away from a challenge.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

From 80 yards, to a benign green, I don't think the pro's are 50-50 to make birdie and par.

Statistics at the U.S. Open and other events indicate that PGA Tour Pros are 50-50 to make a putt at 6-7 feet.

So, what are the odds that PGA tour pros will hit 100 % of their approaches to within 6-7 feet ?

I'll take that bet every day.

I'm a decent wedge player and discretion is the better part of valor, but, I do love a challenge, I"m just realistic about my chances of meeting it.

[Jim Nugent]

Tom -- from 100 to 125 yards in 2005, PGA touring pro's averaged 20 feet 4 inches from the hole.  Or so says ShotLink.  They don't give stats for 80 yards.  But based on the numbers they give for longer distances -- 125 to 150, 150 to 175, 175 to 200, etc. -- I would guess the average is around 17 or 18 feet.  

I don't believe anyone makes 50%, much less 75%, of 17 foot long putts.  

For anyone interested, here are the stats ShotLink gives for 2005, for the PGA tour as a whole:

To the green          Ave distance from hole

200 yards+              43'
175 - 199                34' 5"
150 - 174                28' 3"
125 - 149                23' 5"
100 - 124                20' 4"

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick/Jim:

The point is this:  Rich called the hole a pussycat.  It's not.  Hell you guys set a bet you find reasonable, and I'll still take the over.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags: