At 225 yards, is the seventeenth at Pebble horrible - or merely bad?

[TEPaul]

"Yeah, but Ran, they ultimately DID take my suggestiion and stick a pot bunker smack dab in the middle of the 15th fairway at 240-290 (depending on the tees) just like I said....so at least there's hope..."

Shivas:

I think that bunker on #15 is the right idea but it is about 3-4 times too big and it's way too far left. Ideally they should expand the fairway considerably to the right, move that bunker right and make it much smaller. That way players would have up to four ways to deal with it. Where it is now and with the size of it there is no way to get left of it.

I also asked them about it out here and for some reason they were not aware it was YOUR suggestion.  

[Jon Wiggett]

Personally, I think the hole would be way better if they got rid of the two back bunkers and all the long grass long and left of the green, and the head of that amoeba bunker and just built a giant section there that runs long and left - all all the way out to the cliff...

Try going after THAT back left pin on Sunday with the US Open on the line....

Shivas,

I am with you on this one. This is definitely a chance to play the hole how I have seen you describe it. A lay up long with a fairly straight forward chip back. Controversial but hell of a hole.

Jon

[Phil McDade]

We had a 300 yard par 3 at Oakmont. What was the GIR percent there?

Interestingly, Ran has always loved Oakmont's 8th, arguing the new back tee (which is elevated) and room in front of the green allows for the kind of long, running fairway wood shot into the green that Fownes originally envisioned for that hole.

From the GCA Oakmont review:

8th hole, 290/225 yards; Nearly all the great architects during the Golden Age of golf design included a long one shotter into their designs. Examples of very fine to excellent holes in the 220 to 240 yard range built during the 1910s and 1920s are too numerous to mention. In those days of hickory golf, such holes required either a three wood or driver. With time and the ceaseless march of technology, these same length holes now only require a mid to long iron shot for the game’s best. Many of the classic old courses don’t have the room to expand their holes but Oakmont does. And they took full advantage when they lengthened this hole to nearly 290 yards in preparation for the 2007 U.S. Open. The whining and howls of protest from the world’s best as to this rigorous challenge would have fallen on deaf ears to H.C. and W.C. Fownes; they intended a driver to be hit here and designed the hole accordingly. The green and its contours are (relatively speaking given that the greens often stimp above 13!)among the moremodest on the course. At hundred yards in length, the Sahara bunker visually dominates but is shallow. Furthermore, on the direct tee to green line, there is forty-three yards of open fairway past the Sahara to the front of the open green.

[Terry Lavin]

It's pretty horrific.

[Garland Bayley]

... When a player decides that his best target on a par 3 is a bunker then I think that there is something wrong.  

Par is irrelevant. The object of the game is to get the ball in the hole in the least number of strokes possible.
You all love half par holes when the par is 4. Why the hate for a half par hole when the par is 3? Seems, dare I say it, hypocritical.

[Kyle Henderson]

The USGA lists the yardage at 208, if I’m not mistaken. Was 225 the number given for the back left pin location?

I watched Schwartzel and Garcia run shots in from the front right to tap-in distance yesterday, but fortune certainly played a large role in both shots. Tiger hit a gorgeous moon ball but still couldn’t stop his shot pin high.

It’s a fun hole to watch in person, but probably not the best example of a great tournament hole from a medal play perspective.

[Matt_Cohn]

We all rave about half-par holes.  If my math is correct, a 3.6 average is pretty damned close.

Mike

There's more to it than that though. You could put the pin in a stupid spot on any hole and make it average 0.6 over par. Doesn't make it a good hole!

[Garland Bayley]

We all rave about half-par holes.  If my math is correct, a 3.6 average is pretty damned close.

Mike

There's more to it than that though. You could put the pin in a stupid spot on any hole and make it average 0.6 over par. Doesn't make it a good hole!

Nice bit of hyperbole Matt.

[John Moore II]

The USGA lists the yardage at 208, if I’m not mistaken. Was 225 the number given for the back left pin location?

I watched Schwartzel and Garcia run shots in from the front right to tap-in distance yesterday, but fortune certainly played a large role in both shots. Tiger hit a gorgeous moon ball but still couldn’t stop his shot pin high.

It’s a fun hole to watch in person, but probably not the best example of a great tournament hole from a medal play perspective.

Would you look at that? Two examples of shots I said would be ideal working out. Magical.     And I can tell you that high shots can hold greens; I recently hit a 3 wood into a par 3 green and on fairly firm greens, it stopped within 2 feet of where it landed. It can happen.

[Garland Bayley]

Yeah, but Ran, they ultimately DID take my suggestiion and stick a pot bunker smack dab in the middle of the 15th fairway at 240-290 (depending on the tees) just like I said....so at least there's hope...

I agree with you.  The left part of that green has crept in 7-10 feet on all sides.  It is a much smaller target than it used to be.  Then again, with cavity backs and rocket balls that go dead straight and spin like crazy, is the challenge really any greater than it was 50 years ago?  

Sorry Dave,

But you can't have it both ways. The ball can either go dead straight at that distance, or it can spin a lot, but not both. The balata ball would be spinning more, and have a better chance at holding. Cavity backs would have negligible effect on the spin.

[Pete Lavallee]

At the 1992 Open I spent 2 hours on the last day standing right next to the 218 yard tee. The wind was howling and player after player grabbed 3 wood; apparently it's against their religion to hit driver on a par 3 hole. To a man each failed to reach the putting green. As soon as they would pull the 3 wood out of the bag the crowd in the bleachers would yell "NO HIT DRIVER". Finally Ian Bakeketr Finch pulled out the driver, got a huge round of applause and was the ONLY player I saw in 2 hours to hit the green.

Seems their using 4 and 3 irons now, these guys must be more atheletic. Sometimes a small green for a long shot in works great; but hese greens are usually long and narrow, not wide and shallow. The shape of this green has nothing to do with the architects intial intent and has not morphed for the better, IMHO.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Seems their using 4 and 3 irons now, these guys must be more atheletic.

It's the ball Pete! And, vanishing loft disease.

Sometimes a small green for a long shot in works great; but hese greens are usually long and narrow, not wide and shallow. The shape of this green has nothing to do with the architects intial intent and has not morphed for the better, IMHO.

Please provide a reference to verify the "architects intial(sic) intent"

[Morgan Clawson]

Great thread.

I watched yesterday and thought to myself " I could never hit that part of the green".

As a bogey golfer I would liekely play the white tees (6100 yards) at Pebble. The distance for #17 from the whites is 163. Realistically, I could hit that left side of the green 5% of the time, and some of those would inevitably be semi-lucky bounces from the rough.

I agree with M Hendren's comment: "It is the professional players' supreme skill that renders the hole problematic for them.  They are their own worst enemies. They simply can't fathom that there is a pin location that they can't access.   The modest fairway begs to be utilized in conjunction with a left-hand pin."

It would be pretty interesting to see 1/2 the field lay-up and go for par with a pitch and a putt. But, I'm not sure if that pin position would realistically accomodate that type of play. 

[Garland Bayley]

..
As a bogey golfer I would liekely play the white tees (6100 yards) at Pebble. The distance for #17 from the whites is 163. Realistically, I could hit that left side of the green 5% of the time, and some of those would inevitably be semi-lucky bounces from the rough.
...

My understanding is that the greens designer called the left part the pro's green and the right part the amateur's green. We'll put you down as an amateur.

[Gary Slatter]

Sorry Ran, it is still a great hole, and still exciting IMHO.
My preference would be to cut the grass shorter within the bowls to allow balls to run into the "green" but if the players hit the correct shot they are rewarded.  In fact sometimes they get to hit a great shot twice on one hole for a par.
It's the easiest driveable par four ever, even if it says 3 on the card.

[Adam Clayman]

Ishikawa just passed the shot test. Maybe as golfers get older they lose their nerve? 

[Fred Yanni]

I have always thought that 17 was the most over rated hole on the course.  In my opinion the hole is not framed very well from the tee shot to show off what is a great and interesting green.  It looks like the green sits in the middle of a pretty boring field from the tee (with a great back drop of course). 

Notice how most of the great pics of the hole are from the right front of the green.  I never felt it used the ocean back drop as well as the rest of the holes on the course.  A more elevated tee may solve that issue for me or moving the tee more to the right. 

As to Ran's point I agree.  This is a solid 180-190 yard par three.   I have hit and seen too many great shots from the back tees end up with bad results here for me to consider it a great and fair hole that rewards well struck shots.  Seems more like a crap shoot than a hole that really rewards exceptional play. 

Just my humble opinion. 

[Garland Bayley]

Fred,

You want fair holes? Go play a driving range!
 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I love 12 by the by. I do think 17 is over the top.Naturally I totally dislike the bunker edges.

[V. Kmetz]

The elite Open players are 25-30 shots better than me on such courses under such set-ups, but that hole would be one of the easiest 4s I could ever make...with a chance for 3 and when the pin in the front a possible 2.

The back pin? i'd be playing a 175-185 shot wide to the front right edge, and trying to up and down for better than "4"

I don't care what the yardage is or what the shape or architectural demands are or what the rightful traditional "par" may be, every hole is a par 4 for me...easy, average, difficult, impossible, whatever.

17 PB is therefore an exhilarating opportunity hole in my evaluation, a brilliant bit of fun that makes a very do-able 4 with a solid chance for something better.

cheers

vk

[Tim Gavrich]

It's not necessarily a terrible hole or a terrible green; it's just that to a pin on the left half, 210 yards is about 35 too many for that.  With the pin on the right part, though, it's just fine from 210-220 yards.  But #17 (from the back tee to the left green) is only the second silliest hole on the course.

[jeffwarne]

In all reality, I don't think its that bad. None of the players hit what I would consider to be the preferred shot into the hole. Actually neither shot that I would prefer. None of the players that I say tried to hit a big, super high fade into the pin and land it on the green; not a hard shot with a hybrid, moderately difficult with a long iron. And they didn't try to hit a low draw, land it either on the ridge or on the front and run it back to the back part of the green. Everyone that I saw tried to bounce the ball into/through the rough short of the green and let it bounce where ever it might go. No one really really tried anything different.

And lets not forget, this is the United States Open and these are the best players in the world, stupidly talented. There is no such thing as too hard when it comes to these guys.

John,
These guys played practice rounds, they play the course regularly on the PGA tour, and as you say they're the best players in the world.
But you from your couch know a better way to play the hole?
Could it be that because NONE(by your count) tried your approach, that your approach is not the right one?

[cary lichtenstein]

I always loved this hole. I played Pebble around 100 times over 23 straight year and nothing wrong with missing the green and getting it up and down. Actually liked everything about this hole

[Greg Tallman]

Sorry Ran, it is still a great hole, and still exciting IMHO.
My preference would be to cut the grass shorter within the bowls to allow balls to run into the "green" but if the players hit the correct shot they are rewarded.  In fact sometimes they get to hit a great shot twice on one hole for a par.
It's the easiest driveable par four ever, even if it says 3 on the card.

Bingo! Why msut a half par hole be a "birdie hole"? Is the half shot hole that is a "bogey hole" not every bit the strategic brilliance as the drivable par 4 or 13 at Augusta?

Heck, I would go as far as to say 17 at Pebble in its current form trumps them all as I witnessed at least a half dozen guys hit it to near kick in range while most struggled and few, if any, took what was likely the "smart play" into the front bunker.

What more do we want? the hole tells you "come get me if you dare" and punmmels you if you try to attack without the game or proper execution.

Don't see what all the fuss is about.

[Tom_Doak]

For the record, I do not think it is a horrible hole.

But you would never, never, ever get away with building a hole like that today.