[Eric_Terhorst]

On the "Jack's screwy results" thread, some observers suggest #17 Pebble Beach is a badly designed hole.  Bob Crosby says the pros played it purposely into the bunker, up and down for par.  

Surely the setting is great-heading back out to the ocean, protected by water left and behind.  If the wind is up, this ~180 yard hole can play alot longer.

I recall like most of the greens at Pebble, this one is smallish. Though based on the picture below, the green shape seems to have changed from what I remember--my last play was >10 years ago.  I once saw a player chip (and take a divot) from the front part of the green to get to the back, because there was a bunker between him and the pin.

Would you change it?  If so, how?  Would a larger green sloping toward the ocean work here?  

Would you make the fronting bunker smaller but more penal?

How about tempting the risk-taker to hit a low cut starting toward the ocean left that, if successful, could run up to the green?

If you sloped the green from back to front, would that go against the "breaks toward the ocean" grain I remember at Pebble, confounding the unprepared?

Has all this been settled here before??

 
   

[Aaron Katz]

It is what it is, I think -- a demanding long iron par 3 to a tiny target.  Aside from the challenge of the shot, there's not a lot of drama in the hole, as the ocean is both out of play and (truthfully) not all that visible from the tee to begin with.

There are a few ways the hole might be improved, but I don't think opening up the green to accept a run-up cut shot is one of them -- where the green is situated, the ocean should not be in play at all, even for a cut shot.  An obvious "improvement" would be removing the back middle bunkers, widening the middle part of the green, and raising the back middle so that you could more realistically swing shots from the front to the back of the green.  But that change also takes away the only real unique aspect of the hole -- the hourglass shape.

Another possible change is moving the green site entirely, making it closer to the cliff.  The current front left bunker could actually be made a right hand bunker.  But this would make the green extremely susceptible to erosion, and would effectively eliminate the back tee that is behind the road (the one they use for US Open play).  

[Sean Leary]

There was a somewhat lengthy thread about this a year or so back..Just an FYI.

[Phil_the_Author]

Here comes some blasphemy, but since you ask, I would abandon the entire green complex and create a new one right up against the ocean where the current championship tee is for the 18th and move the tee forward on 18 making the 18th a shorter par-five.

[Bill_McBride]

-- where the green is situated, the ocean should not be in play at all, even for a cut shot.  

Aaron, you're obviously not familiar with the dreaded double cross!  Aim left to cut the ball and pull it....  

This hole has been the scene of two of the greatest clutch shots in the history of the U.S. Open -- leave it alone!  Just my opinion.

[Adam Clayman]

No this hasn't been settled before.

First off, regarding the green's shape. The aerial is somewhat mis-leading. The cut out apron, in front of the front right section looks like greensapce, but isn't. Look closely and you can see the slight color difference. The green does slope from back to front, on both sections. Since the greens location is out on a point, the water is all around you. So, the putts dominate breaking direction is towards Point Lobos(?) across the Carmel bay. However, On 17, that influence is hardly ever in play due to the smallish natue of the green and the side slopes coming off the bunkers.

It is hard to imagine what the original version of the hole looked like. I assume just a hell of a lot more sandy scrub, based on the few photos I can remember from the hallways in the Lodge. But, as is with most of Pebble Beach, the aerial approach shot is repleat throughout. So, Changing this hole to allow for more ground game options, on the left side, is incongruent with the remainder of the course.  

I assume alot of people would want to raise the teeing ground inorder to alleviate the blindness of the putting surface. This idea is so poor, it's what I would call a freshman mistake. Therefore, It has a high degree of probability to be instituted by management.

[cary lichtenstein]

It's a great hole, pick out another one to redesign

[Tommy Williamsen]

Adam,  I don't mind blind shots.  In faact I generally like them.  It is like playing ball over a house like I did when I was a kid.  I like the excitement of going over a hill and seeing where the ball is.  I love the dell at Lahinch.  But 17 iat PB is such a demanding shot into the green that I would recommend raising the tee a bit.  On TV it appears that the tee is raised, so I was surprised to find that it wasn't the case when I played it.  I'm not sure how much to raise it but a better look at the green would help the hole.
I don't regard myself as a freshman, but who knows.

[Adam Clayman]

Tommy,

Pat Mucci is no freshman ether, but I'd wager he would favor a higher teeing ground too.

I stand by my position that this green's front right section is partially visible and that's all that should be.

I particularly like the dual use nature of the fourth's teeing ground. It provides the elasticisity to the 17th. So where would you raise the ground, everywhere?

[Eric_Terhorst]

Sean,

I'm not surprised this topic has been covered, but couldn't find it on search.

Aaron,
Can't say I agree the hole lacks drama.  I remember thinking "wow, here we are, 17 and 18 at Pebble"  Isn't the thought of playing the hole where the historic shots by Nicklaus and Watson won US Opens dramatic for us mere mortals?  If you mean strategic drama, it seems to me the hole offers lots of ways to make par, or triple-bogey--doesn't that create a potential for "drama" at least in the player's imagination?  
And I recall that walking from the somewhat sheltered 16th green across the road to the regular blue tee offers a clear sense of returning to the ocean from the more inland 11-16 holes.

I like your idea of moving the green east--seems like Pebble with their resources could find a way to engineer it.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Adam, I am not particulary fond of a tee that just sits five feet about the rest of the terrain.  I would elevate the surround ground as well.  I probably would ellevate the tee only a few feet.  As I stood on a bench or some such thing to get a better view.  It was enough.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think its too steeped in history to change dramatically. I think the green could be made 4 or 5 yards deeper, which I would call 'evolution'.
From the tee the view is just sky and the flagstick, but it is what it is. Its certainly not a great hole in my opinion, although when you are on the green the view of the bay its pretty wow.

[Adam Clayman]

From the tee the view is just sky and the flagstick, but it is what it is.

I know whenever I get the "just sky and flagstick" look, my golfing loins bubble as if it's the coolest look in the world.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Eric,

It's this mindset that has disfigured an incredible number of  good golf holes and golf courses ?

Why the need to attempt to improve a great hole at the risk of lessening or ruining it ?

Green Chairman all across the country are lathering, if not slobbering, at the thought.  Today # 17 at PB, tomorrow, every hole in golf.

Leave it alone.

Adam Clayman,

If anything, I'd prefer to see the tees as low profile as possible.

[PThomas]

I  believe Arnold, as one of the owners, considered raising the tee height but decided against it

[Sean Leary]

Never mind that you would have to raise the 4th tee box as well so you could have the US Open tee on that shared tee box.  

[Tommy Williamsen]

I don't think the green sshould be enlarged at all.  Maybe years ago when players hit longer irons that didn't get the hight that players do today.  Modern pros hit it so high that they can stop a three iron on demand.  Many pros hit 6 iron into that green.  If they are into the wind the ball will stop better, regardless of what club they hit.  I think we can jsut leave it alone.

[Adam Clayman]

No one has even mentioned the actual shot Jack was refering to and the famous footage that is oft re-shown.

From the rear of the green angle, the ball looks extremely odd in it's characteristics. It's so odd it looks fake. It's hard to tell that it hit the stick, and it's impossible to tell that it would've exited green back, if it hadn't.

Sean Leary, Don't forget about the road to the Beach Club. That's why I asked TW if raisng everything was in "the plan".

Asking the best players in the world to hit that target on their 71st hole of the US open, is not unreasonable. Even back in 1972.

[Jon Spaulding]

A nice move for the 17th would be a restoration back to the original Egan version with the imitation sand dunes and a much larger green. There are a couple of photos of this in the Golden Age book that I had never seen before and was slobbering over this and the "old" 7th.

[Matt_Cohn]

It's hard to imagine changing the hole just because of the history.

However, nobody enjoys getting their artwork bashed on here quite like I do, so...

[Eric_Terhorst]

Jon, Any chance you could show us the picture you're recalling?

Matt,
I agree that if the resort owners or the USGA instigated a change to #17, it would likely create a holy war of controversy.  But they recently survived a complete revamp of one of the other par 3s, #5, which used to be routed up the hill back toward the sixth tee, and this course has been altered many many times over its history.  Even the Road Hole bunker is tinkered with occasionally, so why not at least consider WHETHER the hole can be improved (I'm not sure it can be).

So, nice work with your drawing!  Can I ask for an alternate to  your pro bono art work?  

What if you, for historical purposes, retained the hourglass shape of the green but put the bottom of it where your large bunker is, and put the large bunker right of the green to offer a challenge to those who would bail out right?  

[Matt_Cohn]

On the other hand, if Nicklaus and Watson had both hit their balls 4 inches left or right of where they did, would people be upset about upgrading #17? (assuming it was generally agreed, like #5, that the new hole would be an upgrade).

[Dave_Miller]

It's a great hole, pick out another one to redesign

Cary:
Couldn't agree more.  You always get it right
Best
Dave

[Jon Spaulding]

Jon, Any chance you could show us the picture you're recalling?

When I get a couple of books back from Dave Stamm, I'll scan in the photos.

[Gary Slatter]

17 at PB is a superb hole, should be left alone.  I agree that standing on the bench helps plan your shot but the tee is just right.  As I was reading this thread I was watching the World Cup final hole on TV - that par three looked pretty boring compared to my recollection of PB17.
Lots of potential changes could be done down the coast at Torrey Pines though.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()