[Patrick_Mucci]

Why not start with a short par 4 ?
 
The 4th at PBGC.
 
Can someone post an aerial photo of the hole and then let's begin to discuss the individual features, how they interact/relate to one another and how the architect intented to impede the golfer's direct path from the tee into the hole.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:


Why that hole?  It's a pretty straightforward par-4 in my book: 


1)  cross bunker 200 yards off the tee, so you don't think about really laying back
2)  bunker at 240 in the left-center of the fairway isn't really strategic, with no room to the left of it, so it forces you toward the cliff


I never used to think of that length of hole as drivable until the last U.S. Open there.  It turned out that the hole's best defense are the steep built-up lips from the green side bunkers down into the putting surface, so if you miss the green to the wrong side, you have almost no chance of getting the bunker shot close to the hole.

[JJShanley]

From PB's own course tour.






331yds/326/307/295/253

[Joe_Tucholski]

Pebble is my favorite course, more for sentimental reasons than architectural reasons (but feelings about golf courses matter more to me than anything else).

The 4th is a hole I have good feelings for, it's the first hole at Pebble I made birdie (also the first hole my dad made par.)  The fact that two not so very good golfers were both able to score well early in the round is nice.  I know the point of the thread is to talk about the individual hole but I think the placement in the round is important for the individual hole.  Personally I prefer to have an easy hole between holes 3-6 and then again holes 14-16 (15 is another scoring hole).  I don't like courses that start with scoring holes because I don't feel like I've gotten into the round.

As far as the hole itself I haven't played the course since 2002 but I don't remember the fairway bunker there.  Looking at google earth from 1998 it looks like there was a small round fairway bunker but it was right at the edge.  At first I didn't think that I really like the size or the location of the current fairway bunker (it's right where I want to have my drive end up).  I guess if I want to go there on a short par 4 it makes sense to put a hazard there.  To carry the first bunker it's about 170 yards to get to the fairway.  This bunker probably provides some thrill to those at the end or beginning of their golfing career.  The current fairway bunker looks to be about a 230 yard carry.  If I hit driver it's possible I don't carry the bunker, driver also brings with it the chance I spray one off the cliff or on the off chance I catch one solid I could end up getting to the narrowing area.  The bottleneck is the problem for those that have no problem flying the fairway bunker.  Basically I think it puts some question into the head of all players on the tee, which is nice on a hole where the golfer is looking to make a good score.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:


Why that hole?  It's a pretty straightforward par-4 in my book: 

Tom, it seemed like a hole that many have played or perhaps seen on TV.

For a par 5 I was going to list #'s 14 and/or 6 and 18 or # 13 at ANGC because of their TV exposure.

Par 3's I was thinking about # 10 & 11 at Pacific Dunes, the four at PBGC and #'s 12 & 16 at ANGC

1)  cross bunker 200 yards off the tee, so you don't think about really laying back.


Yes, but you do think about not using a driver.


2)  bunker at 240 in the left-center of the fairway isn't really strategic, with no room to the left of it, so it forces you toward the cliff


That's a bunker I wanted to focus on.
That bunker wasn't there in 1968.
It does appear in a 1998 aerial.

So, who put it there, when and why ?

Does it improve or detract from the play of the hole.

Let's also remember that the fairway slopes from the green down to tee and from high left, down toward the cliff

I never used to think of that length of hole as drivable until the last U.S. Open there.  It turned out that the hole's best defense are the steep built-up lips from the green side bunkers down into the putting surface, so if you miss the green to the wrong side, you have almost no chance of getting the bunker shot close to the hole.


The PGA TOUR Pros are in a different world and I'd prefer to conduct the exercise in the context of the games of amateurs.

For a amateur, while it's a short hole, it's the first hole they're encountering where the Pacific flanks the right side of the hole

The comfort the golfer derives from looking at the scorecard s quickly shattered when they step onto that tee and are confronted with the visual of the bunkers and the Pacific.

[Jason Topp]

For me the hole is an example where setting trumps playing characteristics.  In terms of play, one is required to hit the fairway and then hit the green.  The difficulty of those challenges vary significantly depending on the weather but it is basically a penal hole.

However - the setting is special and the hole seems to rest nicely on the land where it sits.  I think it works.

[Thomas Dai]

Some initial thoughts based on the plan posted, although not sure of the slopes etc.


The cliff and ocean on the right stands out as a major 'scare', a 'do not go there' place that one must avoid. But the hole actually has white sandy hazards on both sides and across and in the middle of the fairway as well.


Is this not too many white sandy hazards? Are they all, or indeed any of them, really needed?


Sometimes, maybe even frequently, the best hazards are the ones that are not immediately obvious. By this I don't mean hidden bunkers etc, but subtle depressions and hollows and humps and run-off areas that the eye is not immediately attracted to but which are none the less, even if cut to fairway height, positions of peril if a players shot ventures into them because of what comes next.


What I'm trying to get at, how successfully I'm unsure, is to have the left side visualy look like the easy-peasy side, and the further left the easier, the obvious safe area, but actually should a player hit their shot there they will find their next shot to the green to be damn hard because of what's up ahead at and around the green. The right side on the other hand, is the visually obvious nasty side, so give the right side the best line into the green but still with the severe penalty of the cliff/ocean if the agressive player ventures too far right.


Atb

[Marty Bonnar]

What?
Patrick Mucci asking us to comment on a hole we have, quote, "perhaps seen on TV".
Patrick, quick, some moron has found your login details. Change them immediately or we'll end up with a whole bunch of unqualified, moronic opinions based on nothing more than two-dimensional representations on a TV screen.
That would never do.

F.

[JReese]

Having not played the course, how far is the carry of the left fairway bunker (guess that would depend on what set of tees you are playing from)?  For the shorter hitter might they contemplate laying up short of the bunker where the fairway width is much more generous?  On the other hand, the long ball hitters may be tempted to pull driver although it looks like the prudent play would be to take a metalwood or long iron over the bunker.  At the very least it seems to provide a few options off the tee for most everyone. 

[Joe Bausch]

What?
Patrick Mucci asking us to comment on a hole we have, quote, "perhaps seen on TV".
Patrick, quick, some moron has found your login details. Change them immediately or we'll end up with a whole bunch of unqualified, moronic opinions based on nothing more than two-dimensional representations on a TV screen.
That would never do.

F.

FBD,

You ignorant s*%#!

Sincerely,
C. Chase

 

[Bill_McBride]

Patrick:


Why that hole?  It's a pretty straightforward par-4 in my book: 


1)  cross bunker 200 yards off the tee, so you don't think about really laying back
2)  bunker at 240 in the left-center of the fairway isn't really strategic, with no room to the left of it, so it forces you toward the cliff


I never used to think of that length of hole as drivable until the last U.S. Open there.  It turned out that the hole's best defense are the steep built-up lips from the green side bunkers down into the putting surface, so if you miss the green to the wrong side, you have almost no chance of getting the bunker shot close to the hole.

I'll never forget the last time I played the hole, in 1978.  I laid up and hit a really good looking 9 iron right at a back right pin.   Never found the ball, I guess it somehow wound up in the ocean!   That right side is very close to the cliff. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Martin,

I didn't ask anyone to comment on the play of the hole.

Tom Doak asked me "why" I chose that hole and as part of the explanation I offered ....... exposure.

Certainly, even a moron such as yourself understands that.

Your post is an example of one of the problems with GCA.com.  Your post is a deliberate attempt to derail/hijack a thread focused on architectural features, their juxtaposition to one another and their impact on play.

What?
Patrick Mucci asking us to comment on a hole we have, quote, "perhaps seen on TV".
Patrick, quick, some moron has found your login details. Change them immediately or we'll end up with a whole bunch of unqualified, moronic opinions based on nothing more than two-dimensional representations on a TV screen.
That would never do.

F.

[Marty Bonnar]

No Patrick.
Your thread began with a perfectly decent premise to analyse a golf hole. You then chose a hole which I'd think very few golfers, far less GCA participants have played or even seen.
Very difficult then for anyone to bring any sensible cogent discussion to the table.
Maybe you're choice of golf hole might have been better.
No deliberate attempt at derailing/hijacking on my part, I can assure you.
Best,
M.

[Bill_McBride]

No Patrick.
Your thread began with a perfectly decent premise to analyse a golf hole. You then chose a hole which I'd think very few golfers, far less GCA participants have played or even seen.
Very difficult then for anyone to bring any sensible cogent discussion to the table.
Maybe you're choice of golf hole might have been better.
No deliberate attempt at derailing/hijacking on my part, I can assure you.
Best,
M.

Usually he brings up holes at Pine Valley, NGLA or Augusta, so at least this example is a bit more egalitarian.
Anybody with the admittedly exorbitant green fee can play Pebble Beach. 

[Tim_Weiman]

No Patrick.
Your thread began with a perfectly decent premise to analyse a golf hole. You then chose a hole which I'd think very few golfers, far less GCA participants have played or even seen.
Very difficult then for anyone to bring any sensible cogent discussion to the table.
Maybe you're choice of golf hole might have been better.
No deliberate attempt at derailing/hijacking on my part, I can assure you.
Best,
M.

Martin,


I guess I would be surprised if very few GCA participants have played Pebble Beach, especially amongst the large contingent of U.S. based golfers. Also, Pebble Beach hosts a PGA event every year, so even those who haven't played the course will at least have some familiarity. That would not be the case with a course like, say, Crystal Downs. Yes, the hard core junkies based in the U.S. may very well have made the journey, but not being televised would make discussion of even a special course like CD harder for many to follow.


Anyway, to answer Pat's question, I have played Pebble 5-6 times, but not for more than twenty years. My recollection is that the small green size and target for the second shot is what stood for me about Pebble's 4th hole. For the tee shot, I just wanted to hit as straight a shot as possible to set up the short pitch approach. I sure didn't want to pull the shot left and have to play from rough. Of course, any slice to the right was death.


Overall, #4 made me a little nervous. In theory it should have been an easy par (and typically I made par or bogey at worst), but it always felt like disaster could occur. It made the hole a little intimidating for me, not exciting like several of the holes that would follow (6,7,8,9 and 10).

[Peter Pallotta]

I can't add very much, Patrick, but in light of my "the minimum architects owe us" and Thomas' "what if you only hit it 150 yards" threads, I found Tom D's initial observation on this very interesting:

"1)  cross bunker 200 yards off the tee, so you don't think about really laying back" (italics mine)

And I wonder: now why would an architect do that?

For the long hitting golfer on a 330 yard hole, that cross bunker is meaningless, and has no impact whatsoever; he's much more likely to be thinking about driving or getting very close to the green than he is about laying back.

For most shorter hitting players, that bunker probably doesn't cause a real/true problem, but it can get in their heads -- and exactly why would an architect want to further disadvantage the shorter hitter?

But most of all, for an average (but let's assume, intelligent) golfer like me and for a once wonderful but now much
older golfer who can still hit it as straight as an arrow but only carries/rolls it out there about 200 yards :

For me, it takes a long iron (and a smart play) out of my hands, on exactly the kind of hole that I could compete straightup against a better player. Without that cross bunker there, I could take a 2 iron off the tee and place it in the fairway and only have a wedge or a 9 iron left -- a very smart choice/approach for someone like me who doesn't trust his woods. Why would the architect take that strategic choice away from me?

And for the older gentlemen who still wants to play from the men's tee but on hole after hole is just managing to get on the green with a chance at par -- here would be a great chance to be on in regulation, except of course that the architect took that chance away too!

My thread has not gotten much traction, perhaps because most assume (as Tom seemed to) that "most architects" meet the bare minimum requirement I suggested. And then at just about the same time you post about a short Par 4 at famed Pebble Beach.....and there is what I'm taking about.

In the name of something, a cross bunker at 200 yards. In the name of what, exactly?

Peter

[James Brown]

I think this hole has a lot of deception in it the first time you play it.  The right hand side is now shaved so that balls can run off the cliff very easily.  I think the 240 bunker is there to fool you aiming too far right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Usually he brings up holes at Pine Valley, NGLA or Augusta, so at least this example is a bit more egalitarian.
Anybody with the admittedly exorbitant green fee can play Pebble Beach.

Bill,

So now, as JAKAB says, like a whining douche bag, you're complaining about the hole I chose for the par 4 analysis ? ?


Why no complaints about the par 3's at Pacific Dunes ? ?
Not exactly a cheap destination.

You indicated that you played Pebble Beach, didn't you ?

You and that other moron, FBD, are now being critical of the hole I chose.

Why don't you start more interesting, constructive threads relating to specific hole analysis.

Instead, you chose to derail/hijack a potentially interesting thread.   That, as JAKAB says, is a douche bag move.

The introduction of the center fairway bunker after 1968 is a significant topic on its own.

I know it's hard, but try, as JAKAB says, not to be a douche bag, it'll be a refreshing change for you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,


Don't forget that the 4th hole has to challenge the broad spectrum of golfers and not just a narrow sliver of that spectrum, hence, different features affect different golfers, differently.


That cross bunker is a significant visual and physical hazard to a large portion of the golfing spectrum.


For that portion of the spectrum that can fly that feature with ease, other features come into play, that aren't in play for the golfer who are challenged by the cross bunker.


That's what many don't understand,  that the architect has to forge a disinterested challenge for the broad spectrum of golfers that doesn't favor any one element.


The center fairway bunker added after 1968 interests me.


Given the other features and the fairway which slopes toward the cliffs, I think that bunker is overly penal, especially given how tiny that green is and how well it's protected.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - understood, and I agree - at least in part. But that's why an architect's (in this case, Tom's) characterization of that bunker's "purpose" was striking: i.e. to ensure that (at least some segment of the golfing spectrum) doesn't lay up too far back. And to me, that simply doesn't sit right - for all the reasons I mention in my post   

On the fairway bunker that's 240 yards out that you reference, what struck me was that the green seems to "open up" from precisely that side -- and so, not only does this 1968 addition seem a tad 'penal' given the cliffs on the other side, but it also seems to fly right in the face of the golf hole's original/intended strategy.

But I admit: I must be missing something (besides not having played the hole) because while in its "essentials" -- i.e. the length of the hole, it's shape, the setting, the greenside bunkering etc -- the 4th seems marvellous, those two bunkers under discussion seem, to me, quite strikingly -- and obviously -- misguided.

 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,


What struck me after playing # 4 was how much more difficult it was versus the scorecard.


That tiny green, separated from the cliffs to the right by a narrow green side bunker, separated from a deep chasm behind the green by a narrow bunker along with the entire left side which is protected by a large bunker presents a formidable challenge despite the relatively short yardage from the DZ to the green.


Like you, hitting the fairway is my primary concern.


The last time I played it, I hit what I thought was a good drive, but it ended up very close to the cliff.   Another few feet and I would have been in the hazard.
It will certainly be on my mind the next time I arrive on that tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,
 
I think the yardages presented are inaccurate.
 
From the Middle of the regular tee which is in front of the back tee, it's 170 to clear the cross bunker and 215 to clear the center fairway bunker.
 
Remember, this is an uphill hole, hence the hole plays longer than the yardage.
 
Also, the air tends to be heavy, restricting distance.
 
The problem is that the fairway narrows once the golfer clears the center bunker bringing the cliffs on the right and the large flanking bunker on the left into play.
 
The golfer, if he hits the fairway from the tee does NOT have a level lie for the approach into that green.

[Greg Chambers]

The bunker in the middle of the fairway makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.  The bunkers left of the fairway create enough of a challenge for hitting to the preferred side for the optimal angle to the green...the fact that there's a bunker in the middle of the preferred landing zone is ludicrous.  It should be removed.

[Jason Thurman]

It's funny: on the average GCA darling course, a bunker right where you would otherwise want to hit your shot is considered "brilliant." At Pebble Beach, it's "ludicrous."



If you stay short of the centerline bunker, you have an area 55 yards wide and 30 yards deep for a target. Most of us would call a target like that "too big" if it was the green on a 180 yard par 3. Why is it too penal on this hole? The resulting approach is only about 120 yards.

[Josh Tarble]

Jason,

Hilarious post. 

Serious question though.  Would the bunker be better if it were moved a few yards right, or closer to actual center of the fairway?  Make two true options for the tee ball?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()