The seventh at Pebble Beach

[archie_struthers]

Played Pebble  only once on a very benign afternoon in 1992 , carried my own after 3 pm for   $ 206. well worth the trip !  There was little or no wind that day (nae wind, an golf)  , but remember almost all the shots ,very good sign indeed. It is certainly a beautiful place. 

#7 played easy that day , just a little flip gap wedge .

Then I watched the tape of the pros posted by Bob K.  Wow ! What a day when you are hitting downhill and have to flight it low it's way hard. Just the looks on Faldo and Kite's faces tells a great story. Sure opened my eyes to the difficulties when the wind blows .

Great little hole

[John Percival]

Ahhh, guys EVERY hole is tough in a gale. The question is: how often is it a gale at PB?
Once a week? Once a month?
Contrast that with a place like Kapalua, where the wind blows constantly (hence the great width that C&C built in).

IMO the green is too large for such a short hole.
As a public venue with large traffic, the green probably needs the size for recovery.
It could do with a bit more movement to challenge the shots that find the large surface, but are some distance away.

Think the lack of birdies by the Tour is due to the distance control difficulty brought on by the downhill nature and the 3/4 swing.

Would have loved to see Fowler's idea implemented.
So....just how many mansions would have to go to make that happen today?!?!   

[Pete Blaisdell]

Thomas,

   That's a true story about Snead putting to the green.

   Having played the hole a number of times, I feel it's one of the great 3 pars in the game. I got a chance to talk to Eddie Merrins at the USGA meeting in NYC and he told me that he made an ace there at the Crosby with a three iron!! Wind was blowing in at 40-50 MPH.

   You miss that green and you got to work your butt off for par. That green has so many subtle breaks . Two footers can fool you.

[Mark Pearce]

John,

You are contradicting yourself.  It's too easy but it's difficult because of distance control issues?

[Jason Thurman]

IMO the green is too large for such a short hole.

Expand upon this idea, please. What makes the green too large, and why would a smaller green improve the hole?

[Mark_Fine]

There is often such a misconception about "small" greens vs "larger" greens.  It would be a HUGE mistake for a host of reasons to make the #7 green at Pebble smaller.

I see this ALL THE TIME when I am doing restorations of old putting surfaces.  Greens tend to shrink over time and smaller greens don't always mean tougher greens.  Some of the best hole positions "on a well designed green complex" are around the edges which are also closer to the surrounding hazards and if the green shrinks, the edges are lost, so are those interesting and more challenging hole locations.  On a small green, a good player is just aiming for the center as they will have a reasonable putt from most anywhere on a small green.  On a larger green, there is more temptation for a better player to play closer to the pin to have a shorter putt where as a higher handicapper is still just trying to hit the green.  The better player ends up short siding themselves more often with the larger green because the target is no longer just hitting it in the center.  Expanding greens actually makes the hole harder and more interesting for a better player yet easier for a higher handicapper.  Every one wins!  A smaller green at Pebble would be a big mistake.

[Joshua Pettit]

IMO the green is too large for such a short hole.

Expand upon this idea, please. What makes the green too large, and why would a smaller green improve the hole?

I can't fathom making the green any smaller.  I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue that the green should be smaller than the current version.  And I don't think I've ever heard anyone who has seen some of the old photos say that they think the green should not be expanded.

Mark makes some great points about strategy of small vs. large greens.  It's always amusing to hear comments from members of clubs that undergo greens expansion/restoration projects before and after the work is completed.  Most often the conventional thinking is that expanding greens will make the course play easier, and that's typically the fundamental argument of those not in favor of restoring large greens.  But after the greens have been expanded good players almost invariably say the greens play more difficult, much to their surprise.  And lesser accomplished players tend to think the larger greens play easier for them.  Most importantly, the shot variety increases exponentially, which requires everyone to think more (and not just around the greens).  

[John Percival]

John,

You are contradicting yourself.  It's too easy but it's difficult because of distance control issues?

Never tried to respond like this before (with the quote) so here it goes...
   ...the distance control issues make it harder for the pros to dial in a number.
Hence they might be 15 feet +/- off, making a birdie more unlikely.
Not a difficult par, but a 'difficult' birdie.

As far as the green size, contrast PB7 with the Postage Stamp or the 15th at LACC. They both feature smaller surfaces and, IMO, #8 at Troon is the greatest short 3 in golf. One could also throw in 12 at ANGC for size comparison. The difference between the four is the public nature of PB and the traffic the green bears. Only played it once, but again, felt the contours should be more challenging for longer putts.

And for the record, LOVE the old pic of PB7!!!! Would be great to see it restored.

[Sven Nilsen]

1929 Hole Map -



1929 Photo -



Early Photo -



Postcard -



Aerial Photo -

[Mark_Fine]

Joshua - AMEN 

[Jason Thurman]

What is the square footage on the 7th green?

[Rick Shefchik]

The evolution of the 7th green complex in the above photos parallels the Augusta National effect on American golf. Pity.

[Jason Thurman]

Rick, if you read anything on the history of the more "rugged" look at Pebble Beach's 7th during its early days, you'll find that the gobs of exposed sand with rugged bunker edges were installed by Egan as "imitation sand dunes." They looked very cool, but were abandoned quickly due to impossibility of maintenance. Pebble Beach isn't built on sand, and between the heavier soils and the wind there was just no way to keep the imitation dunes functional. They were removed prior to The Masters being televised in color, if I remember correctly, so Augusta is certainly not to blame.

It appears to me that Pebble's 7th looks very similar now to what it looked like in the very early days of the course. Unless you think Hootie Johnson's Ghost of Masters Future appeared to Neville during construction in 1919, it's hard for me to see any correlation with Augusta in the hole's evolution.

[Rick Shefchik]

Thanks, Jason. It was that color postcard I was reacting to. I have no idea when that photo was taken, but the smooth, bland, green edges of the bunkering look terrible to my eye -- like an attempt to make the hole look like any other parkland par 3. It's actually hard to believe that it was any easier to maintain the sand in those bunkers than the previous imitation dunes. The way they look now is certainly an improvement over that middle period:

[George Pazin]

Expanding greens actually makes the hole harder and more interesting for a better player yet easier for a higher handicapper.

You just explained why low handicappers want smaller greens...

That 1929 photo is awesome, thanks for posting all of those, Sven.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,

You are contradicting yourself.  It's too easy but it's difficult because of distance control issues?

Never tried to respond like this before (with the quote) so here it goes...

   ...the distance control issues make it harder for the pros to dial in a number.
Hence they might be 15 feet +/- off, making a birdie more unlikely.
Not a difficult par, but a 'difficult' birdie.

Who cares about the pros ?
200 golfers play there every day.

As far as the green size, contrast PB7 with the Postage Stamp or the 15th at LACC. They both feature smaller surfaces and, IMO, #8 at Troon is the greatest short 3 in golf. One could also throw in 12 at ANGC for size comparison.

John,

What's the consequence for going left, long or right on the holes you cite ?
None of them are as intimidating as # 7 at PBGC.

Do you think that double, triple and higher are more likely at # 7 at PBGC than the courses you mention above ?

I can't remember playing # 7 when there hasn't been a breeze.

The difference between the four is the public nature of PB and the traffic the green bears.

Only played it once, but again, felt the contours should be more challenging for longer putts.

What long putts ? ?

What contouring would you suggest ?

How would you redesign the green ?

And for the record, LOVE the old pic of PB7!!!! Would be great to see it restored.

[Sven Nilsen]

This is as good as I have for a photo predating 1929.

This one is from 1920 -

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

Could you quote the text that accompanies those photos.

Thanks

[BCrosby]

Note Egan's fantastic little slit bunker (NLE) that ran along the right side of the green. It looks so narrow that a shot from it to the middle of the green might have been impossible.

Why don't we see more little bunkers like it?

Bob

[Kevin_Reilly]

See photos 13-23 from some low-quality screen shots I took when the 1963 Shells WWoG match between Snead and Nicklaus was re-aired a few years ago.

https://picasaweb.google.com/113763297251437641936/Pebble#

[John Percival]

Gloryoski, people.
Never said 7PB was bad, just that the green is too large and too benign.
That doesn't mean shrink it by 50% or put huge mounds in it.

And Pat, have never had the pleasure of playing ANGC, so can't speak for the misses on #12. However, at 15 LACC and 8 Troon, the greens are narrow and deep, thus placing a premium on accuracy. Anything sideways creates very difficult recoveries. In fact, the Postage Stamp might be, pound for pound, the nastiest hole on the planet.
Apologies to everyone for not previously including Kingsley #2 in the above list. Also a fierce adversary from off the green.
Only played PB once and was on green, but looked about and it just didn't seem that tough off to the sides.

And as far as 'changes' to the green at 7PB, not familiar enough with the hole to make such intricate suggestions.

[Michael Tamburrini]

I noticed this on youtube and thought it might be worth posting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASBkJYeMhq0&list=PLO5iO-83-j3fFy100Jr1qNAOhBh2iSG5k&index=1

[Bob_Huntley]

Bob,

I'm one of those who think it's a great hole in it's own right AND it serves a critical function, getting you from the green of a great par 5 to the tee of a great par 4.

It has to be one of the greatest connectors in all of golf.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron..

Pat,

Having gone through every US Open held at Pebble, I think you have hit it on the head. I have seen any number of potential US Open wannabees come to the seventh and come undone. The eight hole is in their minds and they don't admit it.

Of course we must also remember the perils of the original 5th hole. There was little relief from a waywardly shot there.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob,

I'm one of those who think it's a great hole in it's own right AND it serves a critical function, getting you from the green of a great par 5 to the tee of a great par 4.

It has to be one of the greatest connectors in all of golf.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron..

Pat,

Having gone through every US Open held at Pebble, I think you have hit it on the head. I have seen any number of potential US Open wannabees come to the seventh and come undone. The eight hole is in their minds and they don't admit it.

Bob,

Isn't that one of the failings of all golfers...................... looking ahead.

Sometimes yardage, or the lack thereof, doesn't tell the story about the play of the hole.

The 7th hole is one of those holes where a loss of concentration can produce dire results.
I've seen golfers down on the rocks to the right of the green.
In fact, someone once took a picture of me playing my second from those rocks.

It's a hole that's harder than it's yardage and it's looks.

And, add in a little breeze to a good breeze and the hole becomes exponentially more difficult, irrespective of the direction of the wind.

Of course we must also remember the perils of the original 5th hole. There was little relief from a waywardly shot there.

I always found the old 5th to be a very, very demanding hole.
I can't begin to tell you how many golfers I've seen that "lost" their round on the old 5th.

[Jason Thurman]

Pat, Bob, how does the current 5th compare to the old one? I've only seen a few photos of the old 5th and I don't think I've ever seen it played. I've seen the land over which it played and I know it wasn't as scenic as the current hole, but from a golfing standpoint how did it compare?