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

[Tom_Doak]

John:

How bout the idea -- silly on my part -- that the hole should not be played at the length for that type of shot.

ANGC's 7th is another good example where extensions to tees don't make sense when greens are left in the same shape / configuration they were originally created for.

Matt:

But this response begs the question, what length is appropriate for that type of shot?

If you always use Jack as your model for the answer, or Tiger, or any particular subset of pros, you are biasing the course toward those particular players.  Or you could go the other way, and make it suitable for the oldest player in the field, but then are you really testing the mental fortitude of the best players -- which is part of the mission statement for the U.S. Open ?

I don't think that the 17th at Pebble is an ideal hole to stretch this test to its limits, because there is really no way for any player to play it safely and make 4.  If you play to the fat part of the green, you might not be able to putt within 30 feet of the hole on the other side; and it's not such a big target over there, either.  A more straightforward hole such as the 3rd at Winged Foot (where Casper famously laid up every day in '59) makes more sense for a hole on which to push the envelope.

Just imagine if Watson's ball in '82 had really sat down in the grass at 17 [like Ernie Els' on Thursday], instead of up in the grass where he could get under it, and he'd made 5 at 17 instead of his two ... I would bet there wouldn't be any long grass around that green this time.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Fair enough.

I see the left hand side of the green and without any wind movement I see a yardage of roughly 180-190 yards tops.

Tom, let me ask you this -- say PV had room to lengthen #8 and the club (heaven forbid it) decided to add another 100 yards to the hole. Does it make sense to keep a green designed for a particular club to be extended in such an inane fashion. The 7th at ANGC is a great example -- the original hole was 365 yards -- worked very well. Now, Hootie and the gang that can't shoot straight says screw-it we're adding nearly 100 yards to the SAME green. Makes perfect sense to me.

I don't use Jack or Tiger as my answer -- others have done that and said only if a shot of Nicklausian proportions is hit (final round '72 US Open) then all else is second rate stuff. Baloney. There's got be more than one way to skin a cat and if such a hole is that limited in terms of what is acceptable then such a hole -- in my mind at least -- is deficient.

You're example of Casper / re: '59 US Open and the 3rd at WF/W is a good example of multiple ways to play the hole and works.

I mean ask yourself this -- does the USGA really believe that fairness works for such a hole if the breeze were to come off the ocean and they play it at max length with a tight far left pin placement?

I do agree w you regarding that short grass would have been done if Watson had made 5 there in '82 instead of 2.

[Greg Tallman]

Not sure if this has been covered and sorry if it's redundant, but how far was it in 1972 from the tee Nicklaus hit his vaunted 1-iron to inches of the hole?

I could be wrong but I believe the yardage was 217 for Nicklaus' famed shot.

Sorry quick research shows it was 218.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

To me, it makes more sense to push the envelope a little bit on a par-3 than it does on a par-4.  On the seventh at Augusta, the older guys have an almost impossible shot to hold the green even if they hit a good drive ... if they don't hit a really good drive they've got NOTHING TO DO except lay up or play into the bunkers.  [It would be stupid to go for that green if you can't hold it, since there is so much back to front slope.]

Nobody complained a couple of years ago when the 8th hole at Oakmont was 300 yards ... is it a requirement that all US Open caliber players can hit it 300 yards now?  But at least on that hole there is a place to aim if you can't get there.

I am certain you would see Mike Davis move the tee up on #17 if they expect a stiff breeze tomorrow.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

The 8th at Oakmont allows for a run-up play -- mega difference with the 17th at PB.

Even the 17th at BB there's more room behind the front left bunker to keep the ball on the surface.

Let me point out that the 16th at Oakmont is another hole that is bastardized by the USGA when they make the green so hard and then favor a tight right hand side -- often players hitting 3-iron or lower.

Tom -- in all the major I have either attended or watched I can't imagine a par-3 like PB with a stroke average above 3.5 !

If the pin is plaved tight to the left than I just hope Mike Davis plays an appropriate yardage -- the US Open should not be decided by toital dependency on luck.

[Greg Tallman]

Tom:

The 8th at Oakmont allows for a run-up play -- mega difference with the 17th at PB.

Even the 17th at BB there's more room behind the front left bunker to keep the ball on the surface.

Let me point out that the 16th at Oakmont is another hole that is bastardized by the USGA when they make the green so hard and then favor a tight right hand side -- often players hitting 3-iron or lower.

Tom -- in all the major I have either attended or watched I can't imagine a par-3 like PB with a stroke average above 3.5 !

If the pin is plaved tight to the left than I just hope Mike Davis plays an appropriate yardage -- the US Open should not be decided by toital dependency on luck.

How sporting of them to allow for a run up on a 305 yard par 3.

[Matt_Ward]

Greg:

Don't know if you were there but the 8th at Oakmont is fairly simple hole when held against the 17th at PB.

The 8th at Oakmont has a very accessible runway to allow the ball to run out -- players may make a bogey but DB and TB and a whole slew of horrible lies doesn't come into the equation.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg:

Don't know if you were there but the 8th at Oakmont is fairly simple hole when held against the 17th at PB.

The 8th at Oakmont has a very accessible runway to allow the ball to run out -- players may make a bogey but DB and TB and a whole slew of horrible lies doesn't come into the equation.

How many players hit it to kick in range as was the case on 17?

I call 8 at Oakmont boring and 17 at Pebble exhilerating.

[Matt_Ward]

Greg:

The issue tom d raised was about the 8th at oakmont and the aspect of just the distance.

The issue is not what you raised in your last post -- i didn't say the 8th at oakmont was one of the great par-3 holes in all of usa golf.

what i did say is that the hole in pennsy is fairer than the one at pb.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg:

The issue tom d raised was about the 8th at oakmont and the aspect of just the distance.

The issue is not what you raised in your last post -- i didn't say the 8th at oakmont was one of the great par-3 holes in all of usa golf.

what i did say is that the hole in pennsy is fairer than the one at pb.

I would take my chances against the best in the world at 17 rather than 8 at Oakmont.

[John Moore II]

Is it safe to say that the 17th at Pebble was possibly meant to be played into the wind? Because they were having trouble getting 6 and 7 irons to stop today. Makes me think that the hole was designed for a into the player wind so that the ball might either go higher and land softer or be bounced in with a pitch and run shot. Thoughts?

And as I posted in another question, how is this hole any less fair than #7 where players weren't even able to stop a lob wedge on the putting surface in many cases?

[V. Kmetz]

Tom Doak...

If you have occasion, would you elaborate on your earlier comment

"They would never get away with making the hole today"

Why?

Or better asked, "Who would stop whom, the architect or the client?"

cheers

vk

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Some of this discussion has me thinking about a quote from GD.  I believe it was the David Fay interview from years back, maybe around '02 or so.  In it, he described the 1992 Open at PB, where Kite parred #12 and most players bogied.  By playing away from the hole.  The corollary is, maybe there's a different way to play the hole-maybe the player doesn't have to go at the pin-although, the number of players putting their tee ball into the bunker must be an easier up and down than challenging the green/left hole locations and risking a bad bounce. 

Now, I understand PB hosts an Open roughly once every ten years, so maintaining the green just for the world's top players may not be good maintenance.  I also understand the green has shrunk over the years-is this true, and by how much? 

When one plays the course in daily play, how long does the hole play? 

It looked like Ernie played short right today, but got a bad bounce, and ended up over the green. 

[John Moore II]

I guess I just have to ask what people would do to change this hole? How can it be made better and still retain the shot value of being the only long iron testing par 3 on the course? I guess you could reverse the green and have it at an opposite angle to what it is currently and border the cliffs the whole way?? But rather than just say its a bad hole, what can be done to make it a good hole? Because apparently yardage is not the key factor as guys couldn't hold the greens today at a much shorter yardage.

[JohnV]

Bogey:

I think you're right on with your analysis. Yes, Els' shot was probably a yard or less from being ideal -- but he chose a shot in which he was flirting with considerable danger if he'd missed it, which he did. He doubled the hole because he failed to safely hack his way out of the high fescue -- accepting bogey in the process -- and instead seemed to hurry the shot and tried to get it close to the pin. A hard lesson, and a tough score of 5 on what originated as a very well executed shot. But that, in my mind, is how the US Open ought to operate -- tempting, but very penal with less-than-thoughtful execution.

Where's Billy Casper when we need him?

Since I was the official with the group, I can say that Ernie didn't rush the shot.  He took his time after Tiger hit his pitch from short left.  He waited for all the camera men and the like to get out of his line.  He then just misjudged the lie and hit his pitch too hard

[John Moore II]

Bogey:

I think you're right on with your analysis. Yes, Els' shot was probably a yard or less from being ideal -- but he chose a shot in which he was flirting with considerable danger if he'd missed it, which he did. He doubled the hole because he failed to safely hack his way out of the high fescue -- accepting bogey in the process -- and instead seemed to hurry the shot and tried to get it close to the pin. A hard lesson, and a tough score of 5 on what originated as a very well executed shot. But that, in my mind, is how the US Open ought to operate -- tempting, but very penal with less-than-thoughtful execution.

Where's Billy Casper when we need him?

Since I was the official with the group, I can say that Ernie didn't rush the shot.  He took his time after Tiger hit his pitch from short left.  He waited for all the camera men and the like to get out of his line.  He then just misjudged the lie and hit his pitch too hard

I want your job...

[Tim Gavrich]

Greg:

The issue tom d raised was about the 8th at oakmont and the aspect of just the distance.

The issue is not what you raised in your last post -- i didn't say the 8th at oakmont was one of the great par-3 holes in all of usa golf.

what i did say is that the hole in pennsy is fairer than the one at pb.

I would take my chances against the best in the world at 17 rather than 8 at Oakmont.

Interesting, because I would much rather put myself against the pros on the Oakmont hole.  #17 at Pebble would be a 4 iron or a 5 wood for me, all carry to the hood of a car, but the Oakmont hole is a solid 3 wood or a little driver that lands just short and bounces up on to a green with a pretty generous opening in front.  For me, it's a no-brainer in favor of the Oakmont hole.

Incidentally, I thought 17 was just fine with today's pin position.  Personally, it's only the left half of that green that I find objectionable.

[John Moore II]

Tim-Thats interesting because it was still a really tough shot even today. I don't think I saw anyone hit the green in regulation. How is that any different than back left?

[Rob Rigg]

Based on what I have seen this week - the hole is unfair because a well executed shot is treated no better than a badly executed one.

Guys who pull it left, often have an easier chip across the green to the pin than those who land it just on the front fringe and see the ball roll over the back into the long rough.

I would play my tee shot into the front bunker everytime at this distance and then try and get up and down. Worst case you'll end up with a four.

They need to either widen the green so you can actually land a ball on it or move up the tees so you can drop it on there.

It does make for good entertainment though - although it is often not just.

[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.

Uh, sorry Garland, but in the case of the ball, YES I CAN!  The ball DOES go straight and spin like hell....

And nobody ever said cavity backs have an effect on spin.  They do, however, have a huge effect on trajectory...

Well, just like Shivas Irons you are clearly in fantasy land.

[Phil McDade]

Bogey:

I think you're right on with your analysis. Yes, Els' shot was probably a yard or less from being ideal -- but he chose a shot in which he was flirting with considerable danger if he'd missed it, which he did. He doubled the hole because he failed to safely hack his way out of the high fescue -- accepting bogey in the process -- and instead seemed to hurry the shot and tried to get it close to the pin. A hard lesson, and a tough score of 5 on what originated as a very well executed shot. But that, in my mind, is how the US Open ought to operate -- tempting, but very penal with less-than-thoughtful execution.

Where's Billy Casper when we need him?

Since I was the official with the group, I can say that Ernie didn't rush the shot.  He took his time after Tiger hit his pitch from short left.  He waited for all the camera men and the like to get out of his line.  He then just misjudged the lie and hit his pitch too hard

John:

My apologies; TV of course distorts the timing of things, and it looked to me that Els simply chose to play a shot that was quite difficult without a lot of thought about the possibility of leaving it in the gunch.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

You are spot on -- the right side provides for a bit more on the fairness meter then the left side.

Guys, it's fine to romance the notion of what Nicklaus did in '72 and Watson 10 years later but the left side at 218 or so yards is nothing more than a poke and hope that you don't get burned.

Landing a 747 on the deck of an aircraft carrier is slightly more realistic than a long iron hit into PB's 17th on the tight left side in my mind.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak...

If you have occasion, would you elaborate on your earlier comment

"They would never get away with making the hole today"

Why?

Or better asked, "Who would stop whom, the architect or the client?"

cheers

vk

v kmetz:

I will start by asking a rhetorical question:  have you seen a new golf hole in the last 30 years that looks and plays anything like the 17th at Pebble Beach?  I have not ... and that's despite the fact that Nicklaus' shot in '72 and Watson's in '82 would make copying the hole seem to be a popular idea.

Perhaps some tech-savvy young man will come on here after me and overlay this green with the 12th green at Augusta National, and then we could have a real discussion.  I believe the green at Pebble is smaller overall, and a shallower target than the green at Augusta; and where the 12th at Augusta has severe trouble on two sides, the green at Pebble has trouble on all four ... the front bunker is actually the best option if you miss the green.

The feature of the hole that I don't think anyone would copy today is that little hourglass pinch which divides the right and left halves of the green, combined with the strong slopes in play.  It is so narrow today that it often precludes putting from the wrong half of the green, on anything resembling a line to the hole on the other half ... and so narrow that there is NO WAY a ball hit toward it [i.e. toward the middle of the green] can stay on the green.  Of course, this is not the way the hole was originally designed ... the green was probably five feet bigger all the way around, so the pinch point was ten feet bigger in the middle ... but the green has been that small since I was ten years old, at least.  I am sure there must be some other hole, somewhere, where you could say that, but I can't think of one right now.

For those who have not been to Pebble Beach in person, it's also quite stunning to get to the tee for the first time and discover how flat the hole really is and how little of the hole can be seen from the tee ... you can see the opening on the right and you can see the flag on the left, and you can see a lot of bunker and long rough, and that's it.  Watching on TV for 30 years gives a perspective on the hole that doesn't exist in real life.

But, it will be the same for everyone in the field today ... I just hope the shot we wind up remembering is a heroic one to overcome the difficulty, and not one where someone gets screwed out of the championship.

[Mike Hendren]

It seems the critics of this hole are concerned that at best execution will not propety be rewarded and at worse someone will "get screwed." 

If the game is reduced to execution, does that not throw strategic design out with the bathwater?   Isn't "fairness" thereby legitimized?

Besides, what level of execution are we talking about?   I loved Poulter's theatrical diatribe on the 7th tee, lamenting the inaccessibility of a pin a mere 99 yards away.  Everybody agreed until Johnson stiffed it a few groups later. 

I also keep reading here that the hole is visually bland from the tee.  If that's a criteria for greatness, we're going to have to rethink a lot of the great holes in the world, starting with The Old Course.

Mike 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

I think # 17 is a great hole, but not from 225.

As to what distance the hole ceases being great ?
I don't know, I'd have to tinker with that question.
When the tee was in front of the road it seemed to be a terrific hole.
As to how far behind the road the holes loses it's integrity depends upon who's playing it.