Thoughts on the two trees in the middle of the 18th fairway @ PB?

« **on:** February 12, 2009, 05:09:30 PM »

The only time I played Pebble was the week after the 1992 US Open. Watching the AT&T, I noticed how small the lane is between the ocean and the trees. Would the tee shot not be difficult enough without them? I personally don't see much value in them. The second right fairway bunker seems OK. I don't think either of those right hand side fairway bunkers were around in 1992.

« **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2009, 05:18:58 PM »

Seems as if it's a big day for rehashing old battles....

Steve - no offense intended, you had no way to know unless you did a search, but this is also among the top 10 most discussed topics here I have to believe... pretty much every year come AT&T time this comes up, then also 2-3 other times during the rest of the year as people play the course.

Hopefully this can save some time: it turns on how one feels about trees in general. If you hate all trees, you REALLY hate these. If you don't, it could go either way.

My personal feeling is these trees take a hard drive and make it EPIC. I like them. But then again I am not an absolutist about many things in this game; in particular trees on golf courses.

TH

« **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2009, 05:20:36 PM »

Some day the may look and invoke strategy like those on the 17th of nearby CPC ...

« **Reply #3 on:** February 12, 2009, 05:26:10 PM »

I don't mind the trees but feel that the hole would be much better served having a bunker in that spot.... still influences the drive but doesn't screw you if you get stuck behind it!!

« **Reply #4 on:** February 12, 2009, 05:28:27 PM »

Quote from: Robert Warren on February 12, 2009, 05:26:10 PM

I don't mind the trees but feel that the hole would be much better served having a bunker in that spot.... still influences the drive but doesn't screw you if you get stuck behind it!!

Steve...duck!

I actually agree with Robert, a bunker there would be pretty cool. However I don't mind the trees. At least they haven't thought about growing in rough to the right of them (oh wait).

« **Reply #5 on:** February 12, 2009, 05:56:18 PM »

I would love to be able to reach those trees these days and have them be a problem.

« **Reply #6 on:** February 12, 2009, 06:05:42 PM »

I think they have their signature. Much like the one front right of the green. After spending time with them it just would not be the same without them. If they took them away, the haters would cry "put 'em back".

Anthony

« **Reply #7 on:** February 12, 2009, 09:11:31 PM »

Tom Huckaby,

Those Stupid Trees would not be such a hot topic of discussion on GCA if only the misguided souls would do the right thing and REMOVE THEM FOREVER!!

Anthony Gray,

The haters would NOT say, "bring 'em back!" - they would REJOICE and rightfully so.

« **Reply #8 on:** February 12, 2009, 09:15:22 PM »

Please cut them down and forget they ever existed

« **Reply #9 on:** February 12, 2009, 10:12:18 PM »

Relative to the rest of the ocean front holes at PB, that tree just feels out of place. Doesn't belong. Sorry...

The fact this comes up over and over and over again would seem to confirm this.

« **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2009, 08:24:33 AM »

What a pity. The two trees in question are fundamentally sound as hazards. They are not unrecoverable from should one be behind them. A bunker would be a horrible replacement. In old photos there's a small pine on the left side of the fairway along the edge of the rocks. In todays world I doubt it would be in play for 99 percent of the shots played. As for the bunkers right the second one is new and the first one has been there for quite awhile. Seeing the aerial yesterday I was shocked at how narrow the tongues are.

« **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2009, 08:36:04 AM »

Love the trees.
I'm not even close to a tree hater.
Yes, many course could use a serious tree reduction . . . but that is a different issue all together.

However, trees as hazzards do not offend or bother me in the least.
And these trees are excellent!!

-Ted

« **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2009, 09:27:39 AM »

Quote from: chipoat on February 12, 2009, 09:11:31 PM

Tom Huckaby,

Those Stupid Trees would not be such a hot topic of discussion on GCA if only the misguided souls would do the right thing and REMOVE THEM FOREVER!!

My faith in verities is restored.
I most definitely had you in mind as I posted on this thread, Chip!

« **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2009, 09:29:52 AM »

I think the trees add uniqueness. It just seems part of the PB experience to have them there. I think they are more acceptable (at least to me) because it is PB. At a different course I may have a different opinion.

Anthony

« **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2009, 10:11:11 AM »

Apologies for bringing up the subject in the first place Tom. While we're on it, would the removal of them affect how you play the hole? For the sake of simplicity, let's assume no wind and no roll.

I'm going with an iron every time unless they're gone. 2 well played long iron shots leaves you what, 20 yds behind a good drive and 5 or 6 iron? To me not worth the risk, especially when you still have a legitimate chance to make 4.

« **Reply #15 on:** February 13, 2009, 10:19:05 AM »

Steve - of course there's no need to apologize; you had no way of knowing. But man this has been covered a lot. It just made me chuckle, thinking of Chip Oat and "here we go again..."

Remove the trees and it just gets easier in every aspect, I think. If you are of a mind to play it as conservatively as you just stated - which is a hell of a great idea if minimum score is the sole and only goal, and you are strong iron player - then yes, it changes little.... you just wisely hit two well played long iron shots, as you say.

However... I'd say that's a small subset of golfers who will - and CAN - play it that way. "Two well played long iron shots" is far from a given for the vast majority of golfers. Also I'd say the vast majority of people playing that hole are doing so either for the one and only time, or once as part of very few bites at that apple. In that vein, few would play it so conversatively.... The temptation to bomb a drive, and a 3wood, to get as close as possible to that green (and potentially on it for a lot of people the way the game is now) is very high.

The trees just add to the complexity for those so tempted. To me it's a good thing.

TH

« **Reply #16 on:** February 13, 2009, 11:03:20 AM »

I just can't chime in often enough on this subject. SAWDUST, PLEASE!

« **Reply #17 on:** February 13, 2009, 11:14:58 AM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on February 13, 2009, 10:19:05 AM

Steve - of course there's no need to apologize; you had no way of knowing. But man this has been covered a lot. It just made me chuckle, thinking of Chip Oat and "here we go again..."

Remove the trees and it just gets easier in every aspect, I think. If you are of a mind to play it as conservatively as you just stated - which is a hell of a great idea if minimum score is the sole and only goal, and you are strong iron player - then yes, it changes little.... you just wisely hit two well played long iron shots, as you say.

However... I'd say that's a small subset of golfers who will - and CAN - play it that way. "Two well played long iron shots" is far from a given for the vast majority of golfers. Also I'd say the vast majority of people playing that hole are doing so either for the one and only time, or once as part of very few bites at that apple. In that vein, few would play it so conversatively.... The temptation to bomb a drive, and a 3wood, to get as close as possible to that green (and potentially on it for a lot of people the way the game is now) is very high.

The trees just add to the complexity for those so tempted. To me it's a good thing.

TH

Tom,

Your point that they need to be there to add a liitle dificulty to the hole has great merit. Before long, for the pros it will be a par 4 or we will see a tee placed on the rocks behind the present tee.

Anthony

« **Reply #18 on:** February 13, 2009, 11:18:34 AM »

When watching the golf last night I thought of something for the first time, other than the ocean there on the left, the 18th at Pebble isn't really THAT good of a hole. That seawall really kills the coastline.

Perhaps I take back my statement...if you took those trees out it would be even more boring.

« **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2009, 11:20:09 AM »

Anthony - it's not so much difficulty to me but complexity. Heck for those of a very conservative bent (as Steve pointed out to me off-line - hope no toe-stepping revealing this but credit goes to those who deserve it) the trees actually make the hole EASIER. The equation becomes simple as no way they tempt the trees.. it's 2iron + 2iron + 9iron or the like, taking all risk completely out of play. Take the trees out and these types then do have the temptation to bomb away....

I still like the trees though because, yes, they do make things more difficult for the pros, but mainly, the add complexity to those who will hit driver no matter what.. and that to me remains the vast majority of players of the golf hole. And by complexity I mean one more thing to think about....

TH

ps to Pat - well, take out the ocean and 15-16-17 at Cypress aren't all that great either... thankfully no oceans are being removed any time soon, or here's hoping. But I gather you mean the seawall kills the view/ambience? I don't think it does, not in real life playing the hole... it's still some serious waves next to you... and it's still a damn famous, historic golf hole....

« **Reply #20 on:** February 13, 2009, 11:21:12 AM »

I think the hole is better without...but its kinda history now... I would be unsure what I would do if it was up to me.

« **Reply #21 on:** February 13, 2009, 11:27:46 AM »

Tom,

Do they still make 2-irons?

Anthony

The trees at 18. The black thing on Cindy Crawford's face. The chicken in Garland's teeth. Somethings just need to be there. Not the same without them. That simple.

Anthony

« **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2009, 11:29:08 AM »

Anthony - great question!
Change that to 2-hybrid.

« **Reply #23 on:** February 13, 2009, 12:56:48 PM »

I like these particular trees. They are very well placed, forcing long hitters to challenge the shoreline if they want to go for the green in two. However, sicne there are only two of them, it is possible for a player to be faced with a number of different recovery shots depending on how close they are to the trees and what angles are still open. Yesterday, Davis Love had no real shot at the lay up zone, so he played a 3 wood out over the rocks that cut back to the fairway just short of the green. Not a comfortable shot - a good test for an elite player proving his mettle in competition.

Generally, forests present one dimentional recovery prospects, but this small cluster works well, IMHO.

Bunkers would work as well if designed properly, but if they're made too deep and steep, recovery becomes one dimensional yet again.

« **Reply #24 on:** February 13, 2009, 02:10:37 PM »

"Re: Thoughts on the two trees in the middle of the 18th fairway @ PB?"

My thought on the tee on that hole was always to just aim right at 'em as the best way to miss 'em and be in the fairway.

News:

Steve Salmen

Tom Huckaby

Mike Benham

TX Golf

PCCraig

Bill_McBride

Anthony Gray

ChipOat

ChipRoyce

Patrick Kiser

Adam Clayman

Ted Kramer

Tom Huckaby

Anthony Gray

Steve Salmen

Tom Huckaby

tlavin

Anthony Gray

PCCraig

Tom Huckaby

Adrian_Stiff

Anthony Gray

Tom Huckaby

Kyle Henderson

TEPaul

An Error Has Occurred!