17 at Pebble

[Matthew Essig]

It is on a great piece of land and open to the elements.
It is rich in history and is the penultimate hole of one of the best golf courses in the world.

And yet I think it is overhyped architecturally.

Am I the only one who thinks it is poorly designed and there is one of the best holes in the world waiting to be built.

[mike_beene]

It is just a field with a lot of glare to a clowns mouth ridiculous green.A few historic shots and the ocean being nearby make it famous.Not sure what I would do with it,as it is in the fabric of golf history. the first tournament I really watched on TV was the US Open when Nicklaus hit the flagstick with the one iron.It is what it is.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matthew,

Can you tell us why you think it is overhyped architecturally and what you would do if given license to bulldoze it and start over?

[Matthew Rose]

It's an odd hole. Obviously the green is one of the more unusual ones on tour.

But it is what it is. It's the Nicklaus 1-iron, the Watson chip. I can't really picture anything else being there.

[Kevin Pallier]

It is on a great piece of land and open to the elements.

Matthew

Is it on a great piece of land ? From memory the tee area was non descript and it is realtively flat and bland all the way to the green ?

[Jon Wiggett]

Was it always in its present form. How did it look originally?

As it is now what makes it interesting is it is a very tough birdie and not so easy par and combined with the last can lead to three or four shot swings on the final two holes.

Jon

[Adam Clayman]

Anyone know of a better way to get to the 18th tee?

[Mike Sweeney]

We see it from this angle so often:



but when you play it, for me it was a letdown:

[Kris Shreiner]

#17 at PB seems to get quite a bit of criticism and I can't understand why...except for the size of the green currently, as they continue to push that championship tee back even further.

Phil hit 7 iron in there on Sunday, I believe, though he and Bones discussed the shot at length before Phil finally pulled the trigger.
Where the hole gets a bit kooky is when they play back at 23? whatever during the U. S. Open. Otherwise, it is demanding, but not too harsh a tee shot.

The green could stand to be enlarged while retaining its present configuration, say 15%, as the constant dumping of sand out of the bunker from shots has built up the sloping collar areas and reduced the surface significantly. There is plenty of room forward of that green, so the back portion could remain little changed, which would be wise as that part of the hole is fine and no work would alter that ground between #17 and the #18 tee box.

A possible improvement, to permit at least some more glimse of the green from the tee box areas, would be to deepen the front bunker slightly and drop the front lip portion of the trap. This wouldn't steepen the front to back pitch of that green, which is somewhat pronounced already, and should improve the visual off the tee.

The bunkers have been tweaked and redone over the years, but the work has never really yielded much improvement from a visual or playability standpoint. The left half of the green, particularly the front bunker face, could use some thought. I also thought the aerial shots on TV showed how mundane many of those bunkers have become. If one looks at older photos, the bunkers have more zest in many cases.


From my perspective it is quite an interesting hole, with plenty of peril and subtle asks of the player should they find themselves in some trouble, position-wise, after the tee shot. Talking about #17 at PB always reminds me of Tom Kite's famous quote after being asked about the 4 he took there during the final round, on Sunday, when he won his U.S. Open there in 1992. "Some bogies are better than others." Too right TK!

Cheers, Kris

[Mac Plumart]

What is the idea of having rough between the green and the bunkers?  Why not mow that down and expand the green out to the bunkers?

[Kris Shreiner]

Mac,

Shaving the rough, with the bowl-like effect of that green in general having occurred as the bunker lips historically increased from years of all of the blown out sand collecting, would probably result in any ball not rolling into the bunker meandering back down into the lower part of the green for an easy putt. The rough holds those balls up and leaves a testing pitch or putt, usually with a lot of lateral movement and pace to judge, to get that recovery shot close to save par. I'm generally a fan of those tightly-mown areas around greens myself, but as the hole is presented currently, the rough does provide some challenge and adds to the intrigue on that hole IMHO.

Have you made it to play PB yet?

Cheers,
Kris

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks Kris...that makes sense.  But perhaps it is time to rectify that sand build up issue.  Who knows...not me!   

No, I haven't played Pebble yet.  I am making my first trip out that way in a few weeks, business trip, of course.  And I am considering sneaking down that way to play Pebble.

[Ed Oden]

Was it always in its present form. How did it look originally?

Uhh...no.  This comparison from Geoff Shackelford has been posted before...

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2010/6/15/pebble-beach-then-and-now-17-side-view.html

The "then" picture isn't really the original, since it was after Egan's redesign. 

[Kris Shreiner]

Ed,

WOW! Look at that difference in green surface area!!!!! Note the very minimal rise in the lips of those bunkers. Whether it is the original or not is irrelevant, that CLEARLY is the direction that hole should return to...with perhaps slightly more canting, as in today's version, front to back, to accommodate the added distance of the hole in the modern era.

Thanks for that link!

Cheers,
Kris

[Ed Oden]

Kris, I actually pulled out the Pebble Beach history book last night to look at Egan's changes with all the imitation dunes.  It was an incredible look that, as I understand it, proved to be unsustainable.  

Courtesy of Sean Tully, here is the 17th hole sketch for the 1929 U.S. Amateur...



...as well as another old photo of #17 from a different angle...



Actually, those interested might want to check out this thread Sean started awhile back... http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44346.0.html

In my opinion, the images of #7 are even more dramatic than #17.

[Mike Hendren]

The hole is far from over-hyped.  In fact I have detected a significant level of disdain for the 17th on this website.  

If I understand the posts thus far, there is some consternation regarding the lack of "framing," a generally derisive term on this website.

I think it is one of the greatest par three's I've ever played.

- Look out there and you see absolutely nothing.  However, you know damned well from television what you're up against.  The issue is not what do I see, but rather do I have game?
- Tremendous elasticity:   A simple three when the pin is front right and a solid half-par hole when it's back left.  
- More strategic than most realize:  Don't like the tiny left-side target?  Simply play well right and pitch the ball down the length of the green.   Most won't, because unlike the 16th at nearby Cypress Point Club, everybody just knows they can easily carry the fronting bunker if approaching a left-hand hole location.  The angle of the green is far greater than most think.  
- Wind.
- Sound.
- History.  

If fits nicely in the routing.    The better player hasn't been asked to hit a lengthy approach since the 12th and won't be asked to do so at the finisher. A great golf hole.  Great.

Bogey  

[Sean_A]

We see it from this angle so often:



but when you play it, for me it was a letdown:

I like the look!  Its very plain jane, not competing with the backdrop.  The narrow middle of the green doesn't strike me as an issue as the green is essentially the other two bits.  I think it would be interesting if the apron were part of the green as well.  I also think it would be interesting to kill the rear right bunker.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Ed,

thanks for the info. Have never seen the old version. Looks good. Did they narrow the green to allow for the 18th tee behind the green?

Jon

[Kris Shreiner]

Ed,

Looking at those epic photos you provided, there are a couple of possible reasons that presentation may have become unsustainable. First,the shallow nature of most of those bunkers on #17, coupled with the mild facing shown, meant windy days, particularly in Winter, when it tends to blow hard out of the South/Southwest, would have had volumes of sand departing those bunkers!

Another concern, which is only abated today by costly and extensive artificial walls that extend even behind #18 tee, was the significant erosion and breeching of the coastal areas in Stillwater Cove during high surf and storm events.

I do believe, and perhaps Tom, Mike, or other archies in our gang could chim in as to the viability, that slightly dropping the depth of the front bunker would allow sand to remain mostly in the bunker. That, coupled with a slight reduction and reshaping of that front bunker's top lip-edge, and the slight green-surface enlargement suggested, could return the hole to a fair, but testing hole from even  the "manimal tee".

Mike H,

I agree 100% sir!

Cheers,
Kris

[Andy Stamm]

Put me in the camp that does not think this is a good hole, although that has nothing to do with framing.

For the pros hitting 6 and 7 irons it's fine. In the US Open nobody could stop the ball on the back kidney, and there's no good 'safe' way to play the hole. For every day play, there's no way.

"A direct carry takes a full brassie and sometimes a driver." How did one stop a driver on the green after carrying the bunker back in the day?

[Matthew Petersen]

I think mostly the hole is suffering from the "modern" look that the course has taken on. We have all seen many of the pictures of Pebble when it opened where the bunkers were all considerably more dune-like. In that setting, and with a bigger green, I think it's an excellent hole. I still think it's one that plays quite well (would be even better if they made the green a bit bigger to make stopping it on the left portion more realistic).

[Matthew Essig]

After looking at the original sketch and old photograph, I think the hole would be way better if it was redesigned to look like them.   

[Garland Bayley]

The hole is far from over-hyped.  In fact I have detected a significant level of disdain for the 17th on this website.  

If I understand the posts thus far, there is some consternation regarding the lack of "framing," a generally derisive term on this website.

I think it is one of the greatest par three's I've ever played.

- Look out there and you see absolutely nothing.  However, you know damned well from television what you're up against.  The issue is not what do I see, but rather do I have game?
- Tremendous elasticity:   A simple three when the pin is front right and a solid half-par hole when it's back left.  
- More strategic than most realize:  Don't like the tiny left-side target?  Simply play well right and pitch the ball down the length of the green.   Most won't, because unlike the 16th at nearby Cypress Point Club, everybody just knows they can easily carry the fronting bunker if approaching a left-hand hole location.  The angle of the green is far greater than most think.  
- Wind.
- Sound.
- History.  

If fits nicely in the routing.    The better player hasn't been asked to hit a lengthy approach since the 12th and won't be asked to do so at the finisher. A great golf hole.  Great.

Bogey  

Great post Bogey. You take your bogey there, and I'll take my double bogey.

Double Bogey

[Adam Clayman]

"A direct carry takes a full brassie and sometimes a driver." How did one stop a driver on the green after carrying the bunker back in the day?

I hit 3 wood my first time from 185, to the left pin position. Yes it was a persimmon, and I took a little off of it, and hit it high. Ya know I created a shot, not just some stock number. I had 15 ft for Birdie. I have no idea how it stopped because I never picked up the ball in the air. (Musta stayed down)

[Ian Andrew]

Don't like the tiny left-side target?  Simply play well right and pitch the ball down the length of the green.  

Whether I agree with you or not about the hole doesn't matter, I enjoyed this observation very much.
The only criticism I would make (to them rather than you) is they have halved the fairway approach in the last few years.
My father played intentionally to the right and closed me out with a par.

My own issue with the hole is the green width.
I actually like the decision to play to the ocean too.