[Joe Hancock]

So the only question I see here is, Is the new 12th more desirable or less?

The next question then is who decides whether it is, or isn't?

All of us get to decide for ourselves.

Agreed.

[Kalen Braley]

Joe and Rees,


Fully agreed... and in the aggregate until we poll everyone with an opinion on it, the default assumption is the new 12th is neither better or worse, its just different. 

[jeffwarne]

Lose much of the lake, play it at 320-360 and let's see some drivers.
Watching guys "go for it" with irons yesterday-zzz

Jeff:


No way that's going to happen.  The governing bodies are united in pretending that nobody actually drives it that far.

And rumor has it 12 is one of the holes used to measure average driving distance..........
#heads in the sand.....errrr water

[Thomas Dai]

This new version of the 12th hole should be a par-3 on the card for these guys. That would make the course a par-71 for 18-holes.
Oh, and then all the current par-5's should be classed as par-4's and that would make it a par-67 for 18-holes.

Atb

[Eric LeFante]

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/driveable-par-4-12th-mostly-hit-players


39% of players went for the green. I think Mickelson makes a good point in the article that you are aiming just right of the green if you are going for it and you could hit the side slope of the right greenside bunker and bounce down into the water. I think a little more rough to save some balls from rolling in the water would help. I also agree with the comments here that the hole is a little short for these guys. You shouldn't be able to drive a par 4 with an iron or fairway wood.


Duval and Nobilo said the lay-up is too easy, the slope to the left of the green is too severe, and the hole needs to be tweaked.

[BCrosby]

I apologize in advance if I missed it, but who designed the new 12th?


Bob

[Thomas Dai]

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/driveable-par-4-12th-mostly-hit-players
39% of players went for the green.

Now if this hole and others akin to it were classified as a par-3 would the ego/vanity of the players mean 100% of them would have gone for the green? 😀
Would any of them have been brave enough to adopt the Billy Casper at Winged Foot approach?
Atb
PS - worth mentioning that amateurs with hcps less than 18 rarely get a shot on par-3's yet at many courses these days high/mid hcppers are regularly required to hit driver or fairway wood them.

[Thomas Dai]

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/driveable-par-4-12th-mostly-hit-players
39% of players went for the green.

Now if this hole and others akin to it were classified as a par-3 would the ego/vanity of the Pro's mean 100% of them would have gone for the green? 😀
Would any of the Pro's have been brave enough to adopt the Billy Casper at Winged Foot approach?
Atb
PS - worth mentioning that amateurs with hcps less than 18 rarely get a shot on par-3's though at many courses these days high/mid hcppers are regularly required to hit driver or fairway wood on such holes yet have vertually no chance of achieving a green in regulation par.

[Greg Tallman]

Can't help but feel this was an epic swing and a miss. Not necessarily in relation to the previous iteration but in relation to the hype/expectations.

I would call for a complete overhaul from 150 yards and in.
- Get rid of the bunker on the left
- Bring wáter into play on the layup
- Nasty bunkering along the right side (140 down to 20 yards or so) that actually canted toward the Green
- Green that had more interest - perhaps the back half running away and toward the wáter making the approach a bit dicey
- Right side a bit more welcoming but not without peril... short grass and again bunkering canted toward the green/wáter

If you want to lay up completely safe - leave yourself 150+ yards. This means hitting perhaps 8 iron from the tee - not likely.

If you want to lay up closer then you must hit a very precise iron of 180-220 yards with enough peril to make the "go for it" option more attractive.
 
If you go and don't hit a very good/great tee shot or get a fortunate bounce then the play from green high right is no cup of tea with the wáter staring at you from a tight lie or a very penal bunker.

Probable result is a hole that is not much fun for the other 350 days per year but that's not who the hole was built for to begin with.

[Tom_Doak]

"Design by consensus" is one of the problems with the much-modified TPC, not one of its strengths.  Further modification by consensus will not "perfect" it.


That has been my point throughout this thread.  The hole may not have been perfect to begin with, but a hybrid of Phil Mickelson and Greg Tallman's ideas won't be perfect, either ... it will just be even further from Mr Dye's idea.

[Greg Tallman]

Tom, And here I thought I had nailed from a desk 3000+ miles away. 

As you pointed out earlier the whole concept of a driveable 4 is "anti-Dye". But I think the Tour has moved away from "pure Dye" long ago so I don't mean to be critiquing the hole in the sense that I believe it to be a true Dye creation.

I was offering up concepts that might get the hole closer to what the Tour was looking for in their original intent. Unless of course their original intent was miscommunicated by they and the media. 

[Steve_Lovett]

The old 12th would've been drivable except that rough and a scattering of bunkers in front of the green prevented the possibility of balls rolling up to the green. I wish they would've adapted the old hole and created a route to the green, together with more teeth around the green to make the pro's think twice about what kind of recovery shot they might have. The blind shot over the mound and uncertainty around the green would've been fascinating to see, and the layup option would've been compelling to watch. 


The 10th at Riviera doesn't need water to make it great, and I think the new 12th turned out to be a dreadfully dull hole.


I attended the tournament Thursday and was hoping to like the hole, but watching players hit a thoughtless 5-iron, wedge into such an uninteresting green was a yawner.

[Anthony_Nysse]

"Design by consensus" is one of the problems with the much-modified TPC, not one of its strengths.  Further modification by consensus will not "perfect" it.


That has been my point throughout this thread.  The hole may not have been perfect to begin with, but a hybrid of Phil Mickelson and Greg Tallman's ideas won't be perfect, either ... it will just be even further from Mr Dye's idea.

  Getting very evident when you look at the original pics of TPC. Its a shame it's so manicured now. I have to believe that wasnt the original intent.
  Also, the new bunkers on #11 and #12 this year look nothing like a genuine Dye bunker. They almost look like Road Hole bunkers.

[Thomas Dai]

Can't help but feel this was an epic swing and a miss. Not necessarily in relation to the previous iteration but in relation to the hype/expectations.
I would call for a complete overhaul from 150 yards and in.
- Get rid of the bunker on the left
- Bring wáter into play on the layup
- Nasty bunkering along the right side (140 down to 20 yards or so) that actually canted toward the Green
- Green that had more interest - perhaps the back half running away and toward the wáter making the approach a bit dicey
- Right side a bit more welcoming but not without peril... short grass and again bunkering canted toward the green/wáter
If you want to lay up completely safe - leave yourself 150+ yards. This means hitting perhaps 8 iron from the tee - not likely.
If you want to lay up closer then you must hit a very precise iron of 180-220 yards with enough peril to make the "go for it" option more attractive.
If you go and don't hit a very good/great tee shot or get a fortunate bounce then the play from green high right is no cup of tea with the wáter staring at you from a tight lie or a very penal bunker.
Probable result is a hole that is not much fun for the other 350 days per year but that's not who the hole was built for to begin with.

[/size]Perhaps they should have replicated the 10th at The Belfry! [size=78%]
[/size]atb[size=78%]

[Greg Tallman]

Can't help but feel this was an epic swing and a miss. Not necessarily in relation to the previous iteration but in relation to the hype/expectations.
I would call for a complete overhaul from 150 yards and in.
- Get rid of the bunker on the left
- Bring wáter into play on the layup
- Nasty bunkering along the right side (140 down to 20 yards or so) that actually canted toward the Green
- Green that had more interest - perhaps the back half running away and toward the wáter making the approach a bit dicey
- Right side a bit more welcoming but not without peril... short grass and again bunkering canted toward the green/wáter
If you want to lay up completely safe - leave yourself 150+ yards. This means hitting perhaps 8 iron from the tee - not likely.
If you want to lay up closer then you must hit a very precise iron of 180-220 yards with enough peril to make the "go for it" option more attractive.
If you go and don't hit a very good/great tee shot or get a fortunate bounce then the play from green high right is no cup of tea with the wáter staring at you from a tight lie or a very penal bunker.
Probable result is a hole that is not much fun for the other 350 days per year but that's not who the hole was built for to begin with.

[/size]Perhaps they should have replicated the 10th at The Belfry! [size=78%]
[/size]atb[size=78%]

I do not see as how what I was suggesting is like the 10th at The Belfry.

[Tom_Doak]

Did anyone see where Alice Dye came out and told Matt Ginella that the hole did not fit the course, that Pete never believed in drivable par-4's, and that even though he approved the hole it was not in keeping with his design?


I was so pleased to see her say something.  Sadly, Pete can't defend his own designs anymore, and I thought the Tour took advantage of that in the timing of this change.  [They only rebuilt the course 3-4 years ago, with Pete being more involved at the time ... so he had every opportunity to change the hole if he'd thought it needed changing.]


Geoff Shackelford is on his site this morning defending the change ... I guess he thinks only George Thomas's designs need to be defended for purity of intent.

[jeffwarne]

Geoff kind've lost me when he stated that 10 at Riviera only became a great hole recently due to technology...
....or groupthink finally spread to the announcers, players and fans


now he's defending a turf chopper on the air...
wow...

[Tom_Doak]

  Getting very evident when you look at the original pics of TPC. Its a shame it's so manicured now. I have to believe that wasnt the original intent.

Anthony:


It's the opposite of the original intent.  Though the TPC at Sawgrass started a boom in new course building, it was conceived in the recession of the late 70's, when interest rates were sky-high, and the Tour itself didn't have much money in the bank.  The very concept of all the waste bunkers was to make them "no-maintenance areas" which is why they weren't labeled bunkers!


Somewhere in my files, I have a copy of an article which I think was in the USGA's Golf Journal, probably in 1980 or one year either side of that, which details these ideas and quotes Mr. Dye extensively.


The only problem with the plan was that once the Tour moved their headquarters on site, they realized the maintenance of the course would reflect upon the brand image of the PGA Tour, so they decided it had to look as good as Augusta.


Indeed, one of the worst traits of the signature design era is so many architects deciding that others should spend endlessly to maintain the image of their own brand.  Pete Dye is the exception to the rule, and so are those of us who worked for him.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Geoff kind've lost me when he stated that 10 at Riviera only became a great hole recently due to technology...
....or groupthink finally spread to the announcers, players and fans


now he's defending a turf chopper on the air...
wow...

Only became a great hole recently due to technology?  He said it ascended to its current place atop most lists.


I suspect he would list that it was even greater in 1927 before it had greenside bunkers.

[Howard Riefs]

"It’s an awkward hole," says Alice Dye. "It doesn’t fit the course. He OK’d it, but it’s not a Pete Dye design."


http://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/12th-hole-sawgrass-reaction-16422.htm

[jeffwarne]

Geoff kind've lost me when he stated that 10 at Riviera only became a great hole recently due to technology...
....or groupthink finally spread to the announcers, players and fans


now he's defending a turf chopper on the air...
wow...

Only became a great hole recently due to technology?  He said it ascended to its current place atop most lists.


I suspect he would list that it was even greater in 1927 before it had greenside bunkers.

Thanks for the clarification.(told you he lost me-easy to do )
I did suspect he was referring to groupthink("ascending to the top of most lists") bad quote paraphrasing by me
.
To be fair I assume he was referring to the choppers only as an alternative to carts-but I would venture 2 of those do more damage than 1 cart-and would be way more dangerous on a hilly course.(Geoff may be right they're safer than golfboards, but not by much I'd guess)


To clarify my position I am not really a fan of "driveable" par 4 as they are currently being designed.
Always a fan of the drive and pitch but...
It's special to me when a Bubba or super longer hitter does it, but less special when they're going for the green with irons because the hole has been created/set up to give the entire field a go.

[Philippe Binette]

For tour players, almost anytime you put a lake on a driveable par 4... it is too big of a [size=78%]risk to go for the green...[/size]

[size=78%]Why taking the risk of a 5, when your average laying up is 3,75... [/size]

I would remove the lake, put some humps and bumps with a few clumps of long grasses.... basically if they had removed 1 bunker of thé old green and gave a 8-10yards wide gap of fairway entering the green

[Matt Kardash]

Did anyone see where Alice Dye came out and told Matt Ginella that the hole did not fit the course, that Pete never believed in drivable par-4's, and that even though he approved the hole it was not in keeping with his design?


I was so pleased to see her say something.  Sadly, Pete can't defend his own designs anymore, and I thought the Tour took advantage of that in the timing of this change.  [They only rebuilt the course 3-4 years ago, with Pete being more involved at the time ... so he had every opportunity to change the hole if he'd thought it needed changing.]


Geoff Shackelford is on his site this morning defending the change ... I guess he thinks only George Thomas's designs need to be defended for purity of intent.

I guess Pete Dye was in an awkward spot. On one hand the Tour has been good to him and his family, and on the other hand he doesn't like the hole, which I think is obvious. I am sure at 91 years old you don't have the energy to fight the Tour on this one. Also, I am sure deep down he knows the course is so far from his original vision that he probably doesn't care anymore. The Tour has had their way with the course for decades. Sure he is been invited to help out with changes in the past, but I don't for a second think he has had final cut. He designed the course, and then it has been redesigned by committee.

Edit: I just reread your post Tom. I am now getting the feeling that Mr. Dye's health is not very good these days, hence they "took advantage" of him not being able to defend his design? Is that what you meant?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()