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

[JR Potts]

I think all golf fans want (and I think I made this clear above) is an ability to hit it on the green in regulation.

OK, if that's your definition of the purpose of the hole then it's horrible, terrible and must be utterly cryit doune. I just don't agree that "Green in Regulation" has a damned thing to do with anything.

Brent:

Then we will just have to agree to disagree.   I really can't believe that you espouse par fours that can't possibly be hit in two, par fives that can't possibly be hit in three and par threes that can't be in one.  But, if that's what you like and that's what you're okay with, then good for you.

Judge Smails: Then how do you measure yourself with other golfers?
Ty Webb: By height.

And I don't find it to be the purpose of the hole - I find it to be the purpose of the game of golf.  When a ball can't be struck onto the putting surface in regulation by 70 of the greatest golfers on the planet (in quasi-ideal weather conditions) then the hole is not functioning as designed and as intended.

[Garland Bayley]

Maybe we just have a bunch of guys too dumb, or too arrogant to do what it takes. Someone mentioned a 7 wood. These guys have enough shots to not need all 14 clubs. Why can't someone just take a club out and put in that 7 wood? If it is highly likely to change the score on 17 from 4 to 3, while playing with the other 13 clubs doesn't make a difference in their score, shouldn't they be opting to save a stroke. Heck, maybe if Ernie had done it, he would have won going away.

[JR Potts]

Shivas - not true.

I submit that you couldn't possibly hit it close on 7 or 17.  Did you see anyone within 10 feet on either par 3?  I may have missed it but I sure didn't.

[Garland Bayley]

...Then we will just have to agree to disagree.   I really can't believe that you espouse par fours that can't possibly be hit in two, par fives that can't possibly be hit in three and par threes that can't be in one.  But, if that's what you like and that's what you're okay with, then good for you.
...

So why are we focusing on the par 3 17th. It wasn't the hardest hole on the course. Shouldn't we be focusing on the par 4 10th. It was the hardest hole on the course. Was everyone hitting that green in regulation and then three jacking? No use in discussing par 5s that can't be hit in three until we start coming across 750 plus yard par fives, which isn't going to happen at the US Open anytime soon.

[JR Potts]

I don't particularly remember watching #10 but were players actually able to hit it on the green?

[Garland Bayley]

I don't particularly remember watching #10 but were players actually able to hit it on the green?

If they were, they were 3 jacking in significant numbers, because significantly more players bogeyed instead of pared. The opposite is true of 17 with significantly more pars than bogeys.

Perhaps the opinions here are skewed by the inability of the leaders to handle 17.

[Matt_Ward]

Brent:

Sliding backwards is so much fun isn't.

Your own words demonstrate that the only way to play the hole was to hit some short shot to the side -- chip up and make a par.

Wow -- that's exciting golf -- especially for a US Open.

Brent -- usually you have something cogent to add to the discussion -- you're all wet on this one. PB's 17th just needs a few bowling pins and the clown's mouth.

Championship golf is about rewarding stellar play -- that could not be remotely possible with the way the hole was set-up yesterday.

Deep down -- I believe you know that but just hate to admit it.

Ryan:

You ae spot on -- a birdie attempt once every so often woould not hurt matters.

[JR Potts]

I have to genuinely say that my opinions have nothing to do with the leaders' play on 17.  My opinion has a lot to do with the fact that only 7 people hit the green.....of which.....5 were a result of pure luck.  And I'm not even talking about the disaster that was Thursday on this hole.

That's where my opinion comes from.

And, for the record, #17, not #10, was the hardest hole for the week, playing at 3.4874.  #10 was the hardest yesterday. 

[Garland Bayley]

I have to genuinely say that my opinions have nothing to do with the leaders' play on 17.  My opinion has a lot to do with the fact that only 7 people hit the green.....of which.....5 were a result of pure luck.  And I'm not even talking about the disaster that was Thursday on this hole.

That's where my opinion comes from.

And, for the record, #17, not #10, was the hardest hole for the week, playing at 3.4874.  #10 was the hardest yesterday. 

Make up your mind Ryan! Are you going to discuss Sunday (7 people hit the green) or the whole week?
As you verified, 10 was the hardest on Sunday.

[Garland Bayley]

I guess I would like to revive this thread with one of my stock sayings on this website.

It's the ball stupid!

My apologies to anyone that takes offense at that, I am just trying to piggyback off the old Clinton campaign saying.

This is the first time the US Open has been played at Pebble Beach where everyone was using the "modern" ball. Therefore, the ball did not spin as much as the balls used at previous opens. The set up for 17 could have been exactly as it was in previous opens there, and the players would still have had significantly more difficulty with it.

Do we both lengthen courses to accommodate the modern ball, and shorten par 3s to accommodate the modern ball?

[JR Potts]

I can agree with that Garland.

My hatred of the new ball was driven home two weeks ago during my trip to Pine Valley and Merion. 

We played the tips at Merion - and I hit PW into 18 (from a tee box that wasn't around when Hogan played it).  Hogan hit one Iron.

That's just stupid.....kind of like the set-up on
#17 last Sunday (And Thursday).   

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

Quick question -- you have 15 rounds to play between the likes of PB, PV and Merion East.

How do you split them up for yourself ?

thanks ...

p.s. one other question -- given what you knew prior to playing PV and Merion East was the impression after playing both of them reinforced or completely different.

[JR Potts]

Pebble 1
Merion 4
Pine Valley 10

I don't get your last question.  In what sense?  In relation to the ball, GCA in general or specific to those courses.

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

Let me say it again -- you had certain ingrained ideas on what Merion and PV were about before playing them.

After playing them were your original assumptions proved true, somewhat true or not at all.

PB only one time ! Fair to say PB would not rate among your top 10 courses of all time ?

[JR Potts]

No, Pebble is in my Top 10.  I just liked Merion and Pine Valley that much.  Pebble was wonderful but I felt like once I played it it was a little bit, "been there done that."

Merion I found to be a lot like what I expected.  I think it is a wonderful golf course and even a better golf club.  I would love to be a member of Merion and go play it as my home course.  I loved playing it and loved just hanging around.  That said, I found that Merion is quite short and the ball has passed Merion by.  I found the greens to be a blast to play - but, I don't know how they are going to host the US Open there as #12 and #15 seemed to have little to no pinable locations.  After watching the Open at PB, I am worried that the USGA will ruin Merion for the open.  I hope I'm wrong.

Pine Valley - what else is there to say but it's the best golf course I've ever played and ever seen in any form.  It is hard, it is well suited to today's game and it has withstood the test of time.  Everything about it is perfect in my estimation.  It was actually a little more challenging than I thought it would be but a whole lot more fair than I thought, ie, there is plenty of room to hit it. 

I played very very well at Merion (77 from back) and atrocious at PV (86 and 87).....and usually my score unfortunately finds a way to dicitate my enjoyment of the course .... for Pine Valley, that obviously was not the case.  In fact, looking back, I think I was looking around too much to really spend time hitting the golf ball.

So, I hope I answered your question.
 

[Jim Nugent]

So why are we focusing on the par 3 17th. It wasn't the hardest hole on the course. Shouldn't we be focusing on the par 4 10th. It was the hardest hole on the course.

10 was fourth hardest against par.  17 was hardest, followed by #2 and then #14.  You can see the stats on the USGA website. 

[Garland Bayley]

So why are we focusing on the par 3 17th. It wasn't the hardest hole on the course. Shouldn't we be focusing on the par 4 10th. It was the hardest hole on the course.

10 was fourth hardest against par.  17 was hardest, followed by #2 and then #14.  You can see the stats on the USGA website.  

Jim,

As explained in an earlier post, I was responding to discussion of Sunday play and only 7 people hitting the green on Sunday. Check the USGA website and you will see my statement is true in that context. And, yes I was aware of the 4 day total too.

Thanks,

Garland

[Garland Bayley]

Perhaps it is modern sensitivities that are bad instead of #17 being bad.

Perhaps we should have a herd of horses driven through all the bunkers, and then the rakes taken away before the tournament. Then cut the rough to a reasonable length, and play the holes that way.

[Adam Clayman]

While the green has shrunk considerably in size, since it was designed (Garland Are you sure it was Egan, not Neville?) shouldn't there be some respect given to the evolution of golf holes? This course has evolved the way it has because hundreds of thousands of golfers have enjoyed it for decades. Could that ever be a bad thing? Or is this site too biased towards getting work for the starving archies? (like Arnie  )

The 17th & 14th has evolved into very controversial subjects. Is that really a bad thing? CBM wouldn't think so. Would he? The sheer number of discussions and opinions generated, are noteworthy.

I saw very little of the event, but I saw enough to know when someone played one of these controversial holes, prudently, albeit counter intuitively. (Aiming for bunkers like Tiger on 14 Sunday)

I saw balls end up within ten feet of the back right pin on 7 and the back left on 17. Tiger's sand shot on 14 was within a foot.

 Saying specific holes were impossible has been proven incorrect. Just like at Shinney n '04...
 These cries of unfair, should be laughed out of the building.

[Garland Bayley]

While the green has shrunk considerably in size, since it was designed (Garland Are you sure it was Egan, not Neville?) shouldn't there be some respect given to the evolution of golf holes? ...

"Virtually every putting surface has seen significant loss of the more nuanced hole locations as envisioned by Chandler Egan in his 1928 redesign. (The eighth and 13th greens were Alister MacKenzie visions retained by Egan.)"

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2010-06/golf-shackelford-usopen-0628#ixzz0rhtD7HML

[Adam Clayman]

Garland, I see that I am in error.

BTW,
 
The 14th's green was designed by an Artist, I always thought it was commissioned by Neville. SO, I wonder if the historian has it correct that Egan changed all 16 greens.