Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Phil Benedict on December 07, 2006, 11:43:39 AM
-
I came across this comment by Nicklaus on the Golf Channel's web site. He was responding specifically to a question about the 17th at Pebble Beach.
"Seventeen at Pebble Beach to me was a hole where you were not necessarily rewarded for what you did. You had to get a little bit lucky. My ball had to hit the pin. It could have gone through the green. That was a wonderful golf shot but I could’ve been penalized by it. And to me, I like a hole where you get actually what you’ve done and not where you can end up with a screwy result. I don’t like screwy results."
There was a thread recently about fairness. "Screwy" is really a synonym for "unfair" in the context this statement. The best golfers place a very high value on fairness - getting the result that you deserve from a shot. Seems like a reasonable principle to me.
-
No. It is quite the opposite.
He hit too much club on 17 that day. His shot should have run off the back of the green. Jack was very, very lucky. Fairness had nothing to do with the outcome.
Jack's quote is Exhibit A-1 as to why world class golfers rarely make good golf architects.
Bob
-
No. It is quite the opposite.
He hit too much club on 17 that day. If his shot would have run off the back of the green but for the pin, his result was lucky. Fairness had nothing to do with the outcome.
Jack's quote is Exhibit A-1 as to why world class golfers rarely make good golf architects.
Bob
I probably shouldn't speak for Jack but what the heck. If asked to elaborate, I think he would say that green doesn't have enough depth where they had the pin given that the hole required a long iron or fairway wood. He hit a 1-iron. Maybe that was what he needed to carry the trouble in front of the green. Maybe the problem with the hole is that it doesn't allow for the ground option, although I doubt that's what Jack means.
-
Not reasonable!
The implication is that Mr. Nicklaus knows exactly where and what his actions will yield. Once the ball leaves the clubface, he has no control over it or the natural world he's played towards.
It's preposterous boring golf bordering on the egomaniacal.
-
8)
Well he did consider which club groove he was going to hit on right??
-
There seems to be an ongoing theme that the best golfers in the world can't judge the quality of a golf course. That seems to be a very bizarre premise.
I don't know how Jack could have hit less club into 17 and still carried the trouble in front. FWIW, I agree with the crazy idea that good shots should be rewarded and bad shots should be penalized.
-
No. It is quite the opposite.
He hit too much club on 17 that day. If his shot would have run off the back of the green but for the pin, his result was lucky. Fairness had nothing to do with the outcome.
Jack's quote is Exhibit A-1 as to why world class golfers rarely make good golf architects.
Bob
I generally agree that claims of unfairness are overblown to the point that they should almost always be dismissed, I think this example is one where Nicklaus is right on.
Where did you expect him to hit it? In the bunker? As I recall, the shot barely landed on the green, took a huge hop and slammed into the pin. No one hit it higher or landed it softer than Nicklaus. As maintained that day, it appeared to me like a screwy hole.
I do not think, however, that this example should drive a general philosophy of GCA. Examples of unfairness are exceedingly rare. Examples of boring are commonplace.
-
You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole! They all have to deal with it! Jack got lucky. He may not have been hitting too much club to suit the strategy he had chosen for the hole, but when it comes down to it he got lucky.
-
"Seventeen at Pebble Beach to me was a hole where you were not necessarily rewarded for what you did. You had to get a little bit lucky. My ball had to hit the pin. It could have gone through the green. That was a wonderful golf shot but I could’ve been penalized by it. And to me, I like a hole where you get actually what you’ve done and not where you can end up with a screwy result. I don’t like screwy results."
JACK CHOSE TO GO AT THE PIN. WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT YOU "HAVE TO" DO ANYTHING? MY QUESTION TO JACK WOULD BE, DO YOU THINK YOU GOT REWADED FOR WHAT YOU DID THERE? WHERE YOU PLANNING TO HIT THE PIN? IF THE MAN DOESN'T LIKE SCREWY RESULTS, I WONDER HOW HE REALLY FEELS ABOUT LINKS GOLF, BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW, THE UNPREDICTABLE HAPPENS THERE ALL THE TIME, WHETHER YOU HIT A GOOD SHOT OR NOT. I WONDER IF HE FELT HE HIT A GOOD SHOT WHEN HE TOOK A 10 AT 14 ON TOC? NOT TO SOUND LIKE A HALLMARK CARD, BUT LIKE LIFE, S**T HAPPENS, EVEN AFTER YOUR BEST EFFORTS!
There was a thread recently about fairness. "Screwy" is really a synonym for "unfair" in the context this statement. The best golfers place a very high value on fairness - getting the result that you deserve from a shot. Seems like a reasonable principle to me.
WHAT IS UNFAIR?
-
There seems to be an ongoing theme that the best golfers in the world can't judge the quality of a golf course. That seems to be a very bizarre premise.
I don't know how Jack could have hit less club into 17 and still carried the trouble in front. FWIW, I agree with the crazy idea that good shots should be rewarded and bad shots should be penalized.
I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that good shots should be rewarded. What constitutes a good shot on a particular hole, however, is a pretty elastic concept.
If the proper play on a hole is to stay below the hole, and a player hits a particular club perfectly and ends up in the middle of the green above the hole with an impossible putt, is that a good shot? If I hit a putt perfectly (as opposed to a perfect putt), but much too hard, should my perfectly struck putt be rewarded somehow?
Nicklaus hit a shot with a club that would carry onto the green on a day in which that was not the optimum play UNLESS you could hit the flagstick. If instead he had gone through the green, I can't understand how that could be termed a "good shot" and why it should be rewarded JUST BECAUSE HE HIT THE BALL PERFECTLY.
One of the major criticisms of early Nicklaus designs was that he built too many holes, especially par fours, where the only play was a high fade. He's corrected that in his designs, thankfully.
-
You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole!
But if the architecture or setup are such that they negate the advantages the more skillful players ought to have, then there is something wrong with the architecture or setup. I think that's Jack's philosophy. When the best player in the world requires serendipity - hitting the flag from 220 yards - in order to get a decent result, it's a bad hole or setup.
-
You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole!
But if the architecture or setup are such that they negate the advantages the more skillful players ought to have, then there is something wrong with the architecture or setup. I think that's Jack's philosophy. When the best player in the world requires serendipity - hitting the flag from 220 yards - in order to get a decent result, it's a bad hole or setup.
Jack was not particularly great at bunker shots. So this hole did not suit him as well as others. So what! His game gave him the advantage on most of the other 17 holes. Just because JN can't play a hole well does not make it a bad hole. Perhaps we should ask Tom Watson about the quality of the hole.
-
Garland is correct. Everyone played the same hole.
It may be an extremely difficult hole. It may be a badly designed hole. But that was the test that everyone in the class was asked to take that day.
The 17th is actually a very good hole. You reach that back pin with a right to left shot hit along the diagonal of the green. Jack hit it directly at the pin and simply lucked out.
Bob
-
I think the green on 17 at Pebble maybe needs to be another 5 yards deep. Its a bit tight for 220 or whatever. I thought it was a pretty poor hole (too hard a shot for the size of the green and it looks really bland and dissapointing from the tee)
Pebble Beach was my biggest dissapointment in playing a golf course. Holes 7-8-9-10-18 are fantastic but there are several very dull lookers 1-3-5 (as was) 11-12-15-17.
-
There seems to be an ongoing theme that the best golfers in the world can't judge the quality of a golf course. That seems to be a very bizarre premise.
I THINK, WALT, THAT'S BECAUSE THE BEST GOLFERS THINK W/ THEIR OWN ABILITIES WHEN DESIGNING A COURSE. NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT SOME DO. THEY THINK THAT THEIR SUPERIOIR ABILITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO OVERPOWER THE COURSE, BUT AS TIGER HAS DEMONSTRATED AND OTHERS OF THE PAST, EXECUTING THE SHOTS AND MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
I don't know how Jack could have hit less club into 17 and still carried the trouble in front. FWIW, I agree with the crazy idea that good shots should be rewarded and bad shots should be penalized.
BUT IT WAS HIS DECISION TO GO AT THE PIN. THE EXECUTION OF THE SHOT AND THE RIGHT DECISION AREN'T ALWAYS MADE BY THE GREAT PLAYERS. PERHAPS THAT DAY, THE HOLE WAS NOT A "GREEN LIGHT" AS THEY LIKE SAYING ON TV AND THE PROPER PLAY WAS PLAYING FOR PAR. YES, GOOD SHOTS AREN'T ALWAYS REWARDED, BUT WAS THE SHOT YOU CHOSE TO PLAY THE PROPER PLAY. IT WAS HIS DECISION TO CARRY THE TROUBLE UP FRONT AND IF HE HADN'T HIT THE PIN, HOW WOULD JACK'S LEGACY HAVE BEEN PERCIEVED? EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT THE GAME MANAGEMENT THAT MADE UP PART OF WHAT MADE JACK SO GREAT. IN THIS CASE, JACK SEEMS TO HAVE DODGED A BULLET BY PRESSING THE ISSUE.
-
You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole!
But if the architecture or setup are such that they negate the advantages the more skillful players ought to have, then there is something wrong with the architecture or setup. I think that's Jack's philosophy. When the best player in the world requires serendipity - hitting the flag from 220 yards - in order to get a decent result, it's a bad hole or setup.
Only if you assume that the advantage of the skillful player ought to consist only of hitting greens and getting close to pins from 220 out. What about other skills? Good GCA should test ALL skills, not just high fades with long irons.
-
You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole!
But if the architecture or setup are such that they negate the advantages the more skillful players ought to have, then there is something wrong with the architecture or setup. I think that's Jack's philosophy. When the best player in the world requires serendipity - hitting the flag from 220 yards - in order to get a decent result, it's a bad hole or setup.
Only if you assume that the advantage of the skillful player ought to consist only of hitting greens and getting close to pins from 220 out. What about other skills? Good GCA should test ALL skills, not just high fades with long irons.
Precisely! And making the right decisions is every bit as important as executing the shots. Without the good management, you can execute great shots all day long and it won't get you far.
-
There seems to be an ongoing theme that the best golfers in the world can't judge the quality of a golf course. That seems to be a very bizarre premise.
I don't know how Jack could have hit less club into 17 and still carried the trouble in front. FWIW, I agree with the crazy idea that good shots should be rewarded and bad shots should be penalized.
By the way Walt. Welcome to GCA! ;D
-
You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole!
But if the architecture or setup are such that they negate the advantages the more skillful players ought to have, then there is something wrong with the architecture or setup. I think that's Jack's philosophy. When the best player in the world requires serendipity - hitting the flag from 220 yards - in order to get a decent result, it's a bad hole or setup.
Phil,
You're at 450 posts! Shouldn't you know better by now?
;D
-
You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole!
But if the architecture or setup are such that they negate the advantages the more skillful players ought to have, then there is something wrong with the architecture or setup. I think that's Jack's philosophy. When the best player in the world requires serendipity - hitting the flag from 220 yards - in order to get a decent result, it's a bad hole or setup.
Phil,
You're at 450 posts! Shouldn't you know better by now?
;D
Garland,
Who do you think you are - Pat Mucci?
Are we only allowed one conclusion per discussion?
I think it is interesting that no one has noted that this quote is quite out of character for Jack who has repeatedly spoken out against the concept of 'fairness'. I wonder if we might find the context of this quote? And regarding the shot, it was also, frankly out of character.. where did Jack lie, at the time?
-
You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole!
But if the architecture or setup are such that they negate the advantages the more skillful players ought to have, then there is something wrong with the architecture or setup. I think that's Jack's philosophy. When the best player in the world requires serendipity - hitting the flag from 220 yards - in order to get a decent result, it's a bad hole or setup.
Phil,
You're at 450 posts! Shouldn't you know better by now?
;D
Garland,
Who do you think you are - Pat Mucci?
Are we only allowed one conclusion per discussion?
I think it is interesting that no one has noted that this quote is quite out of character for Jack who has repeatedly spoken out against the concept of 'fairness'. I wonder if we might find the context of this quote? And regarding the shot, it was also, frankly out of character.. where did Jack lie, at the time?
No Lloyd, I am not Pat Mucci. Pat Mucci would have used bold green, or have progressed eventually to bold red if provoked. I put a smiley face to indicate that I know everyone is entitled to their opinion and that I was just teasing.
Now did you get that!
;D
-
If even the greatest players in the world must be rash, under certain conditions, to aim directly at (or even near) a pin, does that make the hole's design (or maintenance) unacceptable?
I say no.
-
Garland,
I am still stung by being relegated to Junior Member. It's like having to eat at the little kids table again!
BTW, several participants in this thread have questioned Jack's course management on the shot in question. I suppose it's possible that he made the wrong choice and just got lucky, but given what I know about the man, it's hard to believe he had a better option to begin with.
Nicklaus had a three-stroke lead when he hit the shot. The RBS commercial where he says "he had to hit the shot" is a bit of an overstatement. He could have finished bogie/bogie and still won. As it is he three-putted 18 and still won by 3.
-
Phil,
You think you have it bad. I was once a God!
:'(
-
This does sound like Jack, and just like 98% of Tour pros. If your fame and fortune rested on the outcome of golf shots, you would think the same way ... but it doesn't, and because it doesn't for most people, that does not have to be all that golf is about.
I have never been able to decide whether the 17th hole at Pebble Beach is a good hole or not. I found Bob Crosby's description fascinating ... but I have personally seen more people play the hole with a 1-iron off the flagstick (one) than with a draw through the little neck of the green (zero).
-
Tom,
I've played a number of your courses. I know Sebonack has your fingerprints all over it. Thus, I presume there are plenty of opportunities for "screwy results" out there.
Maybe not? (Doubt it.)
-
[quote author=Garland Bayley No Lloyd, I am not Pat Mucci. Pat Mucci would have used bold green, or have progressed eventually to bold red if provoked. I put a smiley face to indicate that I know everyone is entitled to their opinion and that I was just teasing.
Now did you get that!
;D
Garland
Apologies
I have yet to get used to these smiley face things. I must learn!
-
Nicklaus had a three-stroke lead when he hit the shot. The RBS commercial where he says "he had to hit the shot" is a bit of an overstatement. He could have finished bogie/bogie and still won. As it is he three-putted 18 and still won by 3.
I think there are two possible reasons he hit the pin then - 1) a mistake, eg, he played for a fade and hit it straight, or b) he felt that 3 shots was enough of a cushion and he was playing well enough, so, what the hell??
My money is on #1.
-
Jeff:
When we played in the grand opening round at Sebonack, I hit it in a couple of places (once on the green and once just off) where it was just impossible to get anywhere inside ten feet with the next shot. And I could tell that it bothered Jack more than it bothered me, even though he hadn't got the screwy result. We "discussed" other such possibilities during the course of the design, and both got our way some of the time.
Of course, Jack has a different perspective. It's not often that he just goes out and plays golf for fun ... honestly, I am not sure if he ever has.
-
Nicklaus had a three-stroke lead when he hit the shot. The RBS commercial where he says "he had to hit the shot" is a bit of an overstatement. He could have finished bogie/bogie and still won. As it is he three-putted 18 and still won by 3.
I think there are two possible reasons he hit the pin then - 1) a mistake, eg, he played for a fade and hit it straight, or b) he felt that 3 shots was enough of a cushion and he was playing well enough, so, what the hell??
My money is on #1.
Lloyd, Nicklaus has said in the past that he he was playing so well at that time that he was able to make an adjustment DURING his swing if he felt that it wasn't quite "right". He says that that was the case on that swing. Who knows. But if so, then you may be right, it was a mistake. If everyone goes to the USGA website, they can see a video of the shot and you can judge for yourself of going for the pin at that time was the "right" thing to do. Note: listen to Nelson's commentary in reagrds to the conditions and the pin placement.
-
Tom,
That's funny.
I actually talked with Jack's caddie from that opening round day at Sebonack a couple weeks ago, and heard a couple other good ones from that day, too... and, there's a rumour going around that your ground attack was more impressive than Jack's usual aerial assault on the golf course!
P.S. Zokol told me recently that he rarely, if ever, plays golf for fun either. At least he's got one thing in common with Jack!
I know you're looking in, Dick ;)
-
Butch Harmon in his new book makes the same claim about Tiger ... that when he started working with him, he offered that it looked like Tiger could feel the position of his clubface in the downswing and adjust it if he wanted, and Tiger confirmed that feeling.
Hard to know whether those guys can actually think like that, or whether they are just so sure of themselves that they believe they can. Either way it's going to work better for them than for anyone else.
-
Jeff:
When we played in the grand opening round at Sebonack, I hit it in a couple of places (once on the green and once just off) where it was just impossible to get anywhere inside ten feet with the next shot. And I could tell that it bothered Jack more than it bothered me, even though he hadn't got the screwy result. We "discussed" other such possibilities during the course of the design, and both got our way some of the time.
Of course, Jack has a different perspective. It's not often that he just goes out and plays golf for fun ... honestly, I am not sure if he ever has.
Tom,
Does your definition of fun include not being able to get a putt within 10-feet of the hole?
On Jack's approach to golf I have always felt that he wouldn't be interested in the game if he wasn't a champion. I don't think he loves the game in the same way that Arnie does, for example, or even most of the guys who participate in this site. He loved competing and winning tournament golf. His career wouldn't have lasted 10 years if he was just a mid-level tour pro.
-
Tom,
Does your definition of fun include not being able to get a putt within 10-feet of the hole?
...
Even Jack builds them that way. I think it is the 9th at Old Works where I was on the front and the hole was cut below the high steep drop to the back. There was no way my 1st putt was going to stop within 10 feet of the hole unless I hit the center of the cup.
-
Re: the best way to play the 17th.
During the 2000 Open, they put the pin in the "Nicklaus" position the last day. I was struck by the number of players who seemed to play intentionally into the front bunker and then played a rountine sand shot for a par.
As I recall, that is how Tiger played the hole. Maybe that's the ticket.
But if that's indeed the ticket, it makes me wonder about the quality of the hole.
Bob
-
Phil:
I'm not going to try and psychoanalyze Jack Nicklaus any more than I have already had to.
As for my round at Sebonack, yes, that was fun golf. On the putt in question that I couldn't get inside ten feet, on the par-5 13th, I pulled my approach shot to the wrong half of the green while shying away from a bunker that would have been an easier up and down. I looked at three different ways to try and get the putt close from the upper tier to the lower, around either side of the mound which intervened or over the top, but I was in exactly the wrong place and there was nothing I could do. Jack came over and tried it, too, and he got as close as you could get. (It was the only time during the round that he tried out a shot from my position, because it was important to him to understand the shot values and I was making a mess of it.)
Now here's my point, a point made to me by Bill Coore at Kapalua fifteen years ago when he was rebuilding the second green to make it more fair:
a) On my approach shot I missed my target 40 feet wide, even though it was on the green.
b) If there had been a pond in that spot, no one would have thought it was unfair that I'd wound up in the pond.
c) It was my fault that I didn't respect the contours of the green as much as I would have respected a pond.
d) Where is it written that you should always be able to get down in two shots from 40 feet away? People have invented that level of fairness for themselves because they think they are "on the green" and therefore entitled to two-putt.
e) One of the most interesting shots I had all day was that putt. No chance to make it ... the question was what was the best chance to get down in two from there, and there were no guarantees.
To a lot of people that is unfair, but to me it's fun. If we'd done our job better, I guess we should have given you a way to get within six feet of the hole, but I was in THE worst spot; if my ball had been five feet to either side I might have been able to get much closer. Which, I suppose, might be another person's definition of a screwy result. :)
-
PS to Bob: Just saw your post. Do you think they were playing to INTENTIONALLY hit into the bunker, or just making sure they didn't take enough club to get in the rough over the back, and accepting if they fell short into the bunker in the process?
-
If we'd done our job better, I guess we should have given you a way to get within six feet of the hole...
I don't see why.
I think you had it right, earlier: "Where is it written that you should always be able to get down in two shots from 40 feet away?"
-
TD - that is gold - re Jack (hell of an insight there, I've been a fan all my life and never thought of him that way) but more importantly that a) to e). That should be mandatory reading for anyone interested in what makes courses fun, and great.
One caveat/question: wouldn't you agree that when a pin is placed in a position so severe that no where on the green or near it will allow a ball to get anywhere near the hole just do to gravity, that is not fun, and also just plain absurd?
I'm thinking of an example that must be near and dear to your heart - #11 Pasa. As it was before, no pin on the back half worked with modern green speeds. Thus it was absurd.
One other thing... can't resist although George Pazin is gonna kill me... on that putt, how close did Jack get it? I have to know... you may well prove one way or the other a LONG-running discussion we've had re the effect of highly contoured greens. If Jack didn't get inside 6-7 feet, it's gonna be a banner day for me.... if he did, please don't answer.
;D
-
Tom,
I tend to think golf should be fair in that good shots ought to be rewarded. What you describe is a marginal shot being penalized. You got what you deserved. But you shouldn't enjoy it, should you?
Being in the wrong spot on the green is no different from short-siding yourself, is it?
-
Phil:
I'm not going to try and psychoanalyze Jack Nicklaus any more than I have already had to.
As for my round at Sebonack, yes, that was fun golf. On the putt in question that I couldn't get inside ten feet, on the par-5 13th, I pulled my approach shot to the wrong half of the green while shying away from a bunker that would have been an easier up and down. I looked at three different ways to try and get the putt close from the upper tier to the lower, around either side of the mound which intervened or over the top, but I was in exactly the wrong place and there was nothing I could do. Jack came over and tried it, too, and he got as close as you could get. (It was the only time during the round that he tried out a shot from my position, because it was important to him to understand the shot values and I was making a mess of it.)
Now here's my point, a point made to me by Bill Coore at Kapalua fifteen years ago when he was rebuilding the second green to make it more fair:
a) On my approach shot I missed my target 40 feet wide, even though it was on the green.
b) If there had been a pond in that spot, no one would have thought it was unfair that I'd wound up in the pond.
c) It was my fault that I didn't respect the contours of the green as much as I would have respected a pond.
d) Where is it written that you should always be able to get down in two shots from 40 feet away? People have invented that level of fairness for themselves because they think they are "on the green" and therefore entitled to two-putt.
e) One of the most interesting shots I had all day was that putt. No chance to make it ... the question was what was the best chance to get down in two from there, and there were no guarantees.
To a lot of people that is unfair, but to me it's fun. If we'd done our job better, I guess we should have given you a way to get within six feet of the hole, but I was in THE worst spot; if my ball had been five feet to either side I might have been able to get much closer. Which, I suppose, might be another person's definition of a screwy result. :)
Man, I think I'm gonna save this post.
:)
P.S. Huck, I can't even believe you're saying that - you've said all along it's the number of strokes, not the distance, that matters. Now you're changing your argument? :)
-
George - I am not changing my argument one iota - just assuming Jack didn't putt out, just tried the first putt. if he gets it to 6-7 feet at best, that means it's 50/50 he makes the next one...
Of course I'd be talking to you a lot if they both three-jacked from there. If they didn't, it will remain one isolated example.
;)
-
Tom -
My thought at the time was that they were playing intentionally into that bunker. I could be wrong of course, but my sense was that with that pin and the condition of the green, they preferred the relatively routine bunker shot to whatever awaited them behind the green. Because holding the green didn't seem to be a realistic option.
I would like to hear what Tiger, Ernie or others say about it. I don't think they were ever asked.
Bob
-
Tom -
My thought at the time was that they were playing intentionally into that bunker. I could be wrong of course, but my sense was that with that pin and the condition of the green, they preferred the relatively routine bunker shot to whatever awaited them behind the green. Because holding the green didn't seem to be a realistic option.
I would like to hear what Tiger, Ernie or others say about it. I don't think they were ever asked.
Bob
So the right strategy was hitting into a "hazard." Not much of a hazard I guess. What a great set up!
-
Phil:
I'm not going to try and psychoanalyze Jack Nicklaus any more than I have already had to.
As for my round at Sebonack, yes, that was fun golf. On the putt in question that I couldn't get inside ten feet, on the par-5 13th, I pulled my approach shot to the wrong half of the green while shying away from a bunker that would have been an easier up and down. I looked at three different ways to try and get the putt close from the upper tier to the lower, around either side of the mound which intervened or over the top, but I was in exactly the wrong place and there was nothing I could do. Jack came over and tried it, too, and he got as close as you could get. (It was the only time during the round that he tried out a shot from my position, because it was important to him to understand the shot values and I was making a mess of it.)
Now here's my point, a point made to me by Bill Coore at Kapalua fifteen years ago when he was rebuilding the second green to make it more fair:
a) On my approach shot I missed my target 40 feet wide, even though it was on the green.
b) If there had been a pond in that spot, no one would have thought it was unfair that I'd wound up in the pond.
c) It was my fault that I didn't respect the contours of the green as much as I would have respected a pond.
d) Where is it written that you should always be able to get down in two shots from 40 feet away? People have invented that level of fairness for themselves because they think they are "on the green" and therefore entitled to two-putt.
e) One of the most interesting shots I had all day was that putt. No chance to make it ... the question was what was the best chance to get down in two from there, and there were no guarantees.
To a lot of people that is unfair, but to me it's fun. If we'd done our job better, I guess we should have given you a way to get within six feet of the hole, but I was in THE worst spot; if my ball had been five feet to either side I might have been able to get much closer. Which, I suppose, might be another person's definition of a screwy result. :)
The post above reminds me of the "old GolfClubAltas.com", in the early days, when there was much more meaningful, learned discussion amongst this group.
-
If they didn't, it will remain one isolated example.
Regardless, it remains but one isolated example with two putters, one of whom is arguably the greatest ever, and the other, who has a strong reputation as an excellent putter.
Think about this: Jack might 50/50 to 3 putt from 6-7 feet (I'd guess more like 65/35 he makes the 6 or 7 footer), but a lesser golfer is all but guaranteed a 3 putt, with an excellent chance for 4 (if Tom could only get it to 10 feet, there's a very good chance a poor putter would be left with enough distance to 3 putt from wherever his first putt ends up).
Well, enough of the thread jack. Unless you come up with something I feel the need to rebutt, I'm bowing out. :)
Jeff M -
I see what you're saying, which is why we need you to post more often. :)
-
One caveat/question: wouldn't you agree that when a pin is placed in a position so severe that no where on the green or near it will allow a ball to get anywhere near the hole just do to gravity, that is not fun, and also just plain absurd?
May the Lord be with you.
-
I came across this comment by Nicklaus on the Golf Channel's web site. He was responding specifically to a question about the 17th at Pebble Beach.
"Seventeen at Pebble Beach to me was a hole where you were not necessarily rewarded for what you did. You had to get a little bit lucky. My ball had to hit the pin. It could have gone through the green. That was a wonderful golf shot but I could’ve been penalized by it. And to me, I like a hole where you get actually what you’ve done and not where you can end up with a screwy result. I don’t like screwy results."
There was a thread recently about fairness. "Screwy" is really a synonym for "unfair" in the context this statement. The best golfers place a very high value on fairness - getting the result that you deserve from a shot. Seems like a reasonable principle to me.
There are plenty of screwy results at The Ritz and The Bear Club
-
Walt C. Why aren't bad shots penalty enough? Kicking a man when he's down, is the bane of penal archtecture.
Bob, Coming up short, repeatedly, illustrates to me they mis-calculated natures influence.
Tom D. There's a very good reason no one draws one through the pinch point. It's not doable. The cant of the front section's side slope pushes everything farther right off the green.
My favorite aspect of #17 is the challenge of factoring-in nature (Mother's and yours). The teeing ground is protected from almost all sides. Factoring-in the elements, up by the green, and their influence, is tricky. This challenge of awareness, is at the core of the sport, and why I like the hole so much.
The 17th hole is not only a good hole. It is a great hole!
The first pace and a half, over the bunker, on the back section, is sloped away from the golfer. The entire back portion of that section is sloped towards the golfer. Hitting a high shot past the first third of the green will almost guarantee the ball either stoping or spining. Especially for a pro.
Hitting just over the bunker on the downslope will propel one's ball to an unpredictable location. Sometimes very long onto the 18th tee. Sometimes just off the back. It depends on how high on the slope it first hit, humidity, length of grass and spin.
On my first go, from the 185 tees, I hit a soft fade 3 wood fifteen feet past the hole. Thought I was short and in the bunker but was thrilled to findout I was putting.
That inability to see where one's ball comes to fruition, is another great aspect of the hole. Pros and psuedo-golfers who require the immediacy of knowing and seeing everything, miss-out on all that glorious anticipation. Same is true on #8 at Spanish Bay when those glorious reeds are tall obscuring where the actual putting surface starts and stops.
.
-
George - bowing out too - just assume I disagree, and you already know why. But I am still interested in Tom's report re Jack's putt. ;D
Phil - and also with you.
Fine Catholic Boy Tom H. ;D
-
I stood on the 17th tee for several hours during the final round of the 1992 Open. As you might recall the wind was howling into the players that day and they were playing from the 212 yard tee as I remember. Player after player pulled 3 wood out of the bag and when they did so the fans in the grandstands behind the tee all shouted "Driver"! Player after player came up short, apparently their egos would not allow them to hit a driver on a par 3 hole. The only player who listened to the crowd was Ian Baker Finch, who replaced his 3 wood and hit his driver onto the green.
In actual fact hasn't this green shrunk to ridiculous proportions over the years? Looking at pictures from before the Egan makeover this green was huge compared to today's size. Would anybody consider reclaiming lost greenspace a viable alternative here?
-
Pros and psuedo-golfers
I haven't seen such disdainful rhetoric since George Wallace's "pointy-headed intellectuals" or Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism."
-
Pete, A thought that sophisticated would never occur to management. Ran wrote about it in his "blunders" piece.
Phil, Thanks! I really am sick of hearing all these watered down crappy opinions! Perhaps I should just stop listening.
-
Jeff M -
I see what you're saying, which is why we need you to post more often. :)
George,
I'm flattered. Thanks.
We had a really busy year, which kept me away from GolfClubAtlas.com a bit. Now that winter has arrived in Canada, yet again, you might notice a few more posts from me, here and there!
Cheers,
-
There was a thread recently about fairness. "Screwy" is really a synonym for "unfair" in the context this statement. The best golfers place a very high value on fairness - getting the result that you deserve from a shot. Seems like a reasonable principle to me.
Phil,
Pardon me if this is a repeat of other comments, I will read the rest and edit if needed, but how would one determine "the result that you deserve from a shot"?
Thanks,
Jim
-
Tom H: For whatever it's worth, I think Jack got the putt to about 6-7 feet by putting over the top of the convex contour at the top of the tier. I was trying to go around it on either side because I knew there was no way it would stop if I putted over the high spot. (The greens were rolling around 11 on the Stimpmeter ... Jim Lipe had told Garret the day before that they weren't fast enough. I guess he wanted to see whether my reputation as a good putter was deserved.) Perhaps Jim could tell you whether it was inside six feet or not; anyway Jack did not try the second putt.
Phil: One person's marginal shot is another player's good shot, that's why fairness is so hard to define.
Re: the original topic of #17 at Pebble: the hole is never going to be changed because of the memory of Jack's shot and Watson's shot, even if they help prove that the hole is darned near impossible to play. Both of them made a 2, but if they hadn't hit the pin, both were going to make 4.
-
TD - thanks. Of course this is going to mean I think it proves my point and George thinks it proves his, but we shall leave that out of this very worthwhile thread... Just do know it's going to be used as evidence if and when we discuss that again... because George and I both know it will never be settled.
Now back to 17 Pebble and Jack's thoughts...
TH
-
d) Where is it written that you should always be able to get down in two shots from 40 feet away? People have invented that level of fairness for themselves because they think they are "on the green" and therefore entitled to two-putt.
a similar point came up on a recent thread......is this a new line of thinking, that if "I'm on the green, two putting should be easy"? who came up with such a nonsensical thought?
it was probably a bad putter who did ::)
absolute rubbish
-
and when did Jack become so concerned with "fairness" and "a good shot should produce a good result"? here's a guy who used to love playing in the British Open, who said St. Andrews is hsi favorite place to play golf...yet at TOC and other Open courses one certainly doesn't always get the "proper" result?
-
from Jack's last book, "My Story", re 17 during the final round of the US Open:
"The pin was where my subconscious had seen it, on the right side of the greens left rear section, making it virtually impossible to get up and down from a miss to the right. But close up on the left was the Pacific Ocean. Bale out to the right side and take a sure bogey? To heck with it. "Give me the one-iron" I told Angelo [Angelo wasn't his caddy for the Open during those days, was he???] and took dead aim at the flag."
-
That the back tee is very seldom used (is it still maintained?) is proof in the puddin' that Nicklaus is right on. Most of you also seem to forget that he hit the highest and softest landing long irons in the planet. If he, the best in the world ever, can't hit his money shot to that section of the green, that part is superfluous at best. Cutting a cup back there where not even God can access it does not serve to identify the best in the game, but only to embarass them. It did add to Jack's fame everywhere but here, where some seem to look at him as being foolish in terms of game management, lucky, and 'screwy' for making such a comment.
-
TOM D
In regard to your statement that I told Garrett, the supt, that the green speeds were not fast enough, I don't want it to be misconstrued that the greens were at 11 and I didn't think they were fast enough. The only conversation I had in regard to the green speed was that they should not be over about 10 on a regular basis. As I recall, this is the speed that everyone had agreed on when finishing the greens.
IF Garrett cut the greens faster than what they were the day before the opening, it wasn't at my direction to make them any faster than 10.
I recall your putt on 13 and Jack also giving it a try. I think Jack was in agreement with your premise that the approach shot put you in a position that you had to hit an incredible putt (one that might not even be possible) from the position you found yourself in. You had to make a great second putt to salvage par. A really bad first putt would have easily gone off the front of the green. I recall you hitting a pretty decent first putt. I think he was little more concerned about the results of your putt on #4, but that was more a result of an unfair pin placement on the green in his opinion. Bad pin placements by the maintenance crew at any golf course can cause screwy results.
Sebonack is a course that great care needs to be taken by Garrett and his staff to make sure the cup placement doesn't make the putting impossible.
-
1. Can't believe I spent so many minutes trying to find some modicum of wisdom or even enjoyment in the "Is Merion a 'Redan'" thread" while this was around.... :'(
2. Jeff Mingay is right that this thread is closer to the good ole days of GCA than anything I have seen in recent memory (of course, in my case and at my age, "recent" is measured in nanoseconds.......).
3. The 17th at Pebble is a GREAT (I'd do colors, if I were as technically adept as Mucci....) golf hole.
4. Nicklaus WAS lucky to hit the stick. It was, for him, a "bad" shot that got rewarded, through luck.
5. Downwind, the play to the front bunker is the shot de la finesse. Best way to get not only a birdie, but even a par, unless you are Moe Norman (or Nicklaus on that day).
6. Think about the 10th at Dornoch (if you know it, or even if you do not). 148 yards. Slightly downhill. Two tier "Mackenzie" :o ;) green. A simple 9 iron in most conditions. Very tough into a wind with a 5-iron in your hand, but pretty impossible when played downwind and with the normal VERY fast and firm mid-summer conditions. Only Tiger on a completely Koan-freindly day could hold the green. Damn it, those front bunkers look womb-like on days like that...... :)
7. As other have wisely said, it was the same hole for everybody on that day....
8. So, Jack was wrong. His result may have been "screwy" but his strategy was even "screwier." If he needed a 3 (or even a 2) he should have hit short, expecting to end up in the fronting bunker. Of course Jack's short game has never been his forte. Maybe that was on his mind......
9. The Doak/Nicklaus/Lipe sub thread here had lots of hidden meaning, one of which seems to confirm my oftn denigrated thesis that above average golfers (e.g. me, Doak) have a relative advantage over great golfers (e.g. Nicklaus, Lipe) on more highly contoured greens.
10. If Bob Crosby really thinks that the right play at 17 PB is to do a slinging hook through the birth canal between the two plateaux, he is either:
a. overdosed on the (ridiculously unrealistic) conventiional "wisdom" of this site
b. a prime candidate for relegation to "Is the 3rd at Merion a 'Redan'" thread"
Love it!
:) :) :)
-
Jim:
Sorry if I misrepresented your point of view on the green speed for Opening Day, I had heard something second-hand. I agree completely that building greens like Sebonack's is dangerous in that we rely on the maintenance crew to be careful with the hole locations, or they will make us look like sadists. It's hard enough with the holes in the right places!
Congrats to whichever of your associates worked on that Concession project with Jack -- it beat out some of my best work.
-
Rich -
I am pleased to be corrected about the tightness of the straits on the 17th. Apparently I played it far too many years ago.
I noted, and as you noted above, that the best way to play the hole at times is to find the front bunker.
I do not take that to be a sign of great architecture. To the contrary, I take that to be a reason to ask questions.
If a pin placed anywhere within a quadrant of a large green means that the preferred shot is into a hazard when being played under typical wind conditions, "great hole" does not leap to mind. Even if Dornoch has a hole that plays that way too. ;)
Bob
-
Lets not revise history too much.
Rich- The wind on 17 when Jack his his 1 iron was dead into him and not behind him. The wind certainly aided the shot in stopping if it had not hit the pin.
I don't believe that ball was going very far past the pin. It may not have been in sure or even probable birdie range but it surely was not headed into oblivion over the green.
#10 at Dornoch is dear to my heart as it was the site of my first birdie ever in Scotland and my first round on a links golf course. ;D As you said it was a simple 9 iron to a front pin. Next day the wind was dead into us and the evil greenskeeper used the very back tee near the beach and a back left pin and it was a 2 iron that slid off the first third of the green on the right and into the swale- bogie!
-
Bob
Apology accepted. You need to get out more. ;)
Geoff
You need to get out more, too. :)
Cheers
Rich
-
17th at PB...
Bob, The first time I ever heard anyone consider the front bunker was on this thread.
In hindsight it may be a prudent play, but when you're standing there over the shot, nobody ever tries to make the bunker!
-
Geoff
You need to get out more, too. :)
Cheers
Rich
Rich - very true indeed. If only I didn't have to work for food and shelter ;)
-
This does sound like Jack, and just like 98% of Tour pros. If your fame and fortune rested on the outcome of golf shots, you would think the same way ... but it doesn't, and because it doesn't for most people, that does not have to be all that golf is about.
Agree with the above 100%. I guess that is part of (a big part) of the explanation for less quirky design from most former Tour pros.
I have never been able to decide whether the 17th hole at Pebble Beach is a good hole or not. I found Bob Crosby's description fascinating ... but I have personally seen more people play the hole with a 1-iron off the flagstick (one) than with a draw through the little neck of the green (zero).
Each time I read this I laugh a little harder. Well done!
-
The implication is that Mr. Nicklaus knows exactly where and what his actions will yield. Once the ball leaves the clubface, he has no control over it or the natural world he's played towards.
Awesome comment.
To all those who say good shots get rewarded and bad ones get penalised, I say this.
We entrust the design and playability of the golf course to deliver reasonable outcomes, but not as often as too many people on here would like. So long as they are noted when achieved, and not angrily scorned at when they don't deliver, then fine by me. The difference between a fair principle and ultimate entitlement in fair results are worlds apart, and it is difficult to wander partially down that road without ending up romping all the way. The result of such a journey is a golf course that is boring and will never amount to anything.
NONE of the great courses on the planet would exist today if "entitlement" or fair outcomes of shots were as enshrined then as they are in some of the thinking in this and other threads on this topic on here.
-
I think what top players believe is that the bounce of the ball shouldn't undermine the ability they have to control the flight of the ball, at least not on a regular basis. A hole becomes screwy when there is no way to flight the ball and get a good result, without being really lucky. One can make an educated guess on the bounce of the ball, but the only thing anyone can control is their flight. When you're Jack Nicklaus and your flight control is at the highest level, you are likely to be skeptical of design concepts that emphasize bounce.
-
Maybe this train of thought is from left field a bit, but I have a question...is it a reasonable trade-off for the difficulty (screwy or unfairness) of the 17th hole on that day in 1971(?) to have #14 or #6 (whichever one had the helping wind) play downwind and therefore easier?
I know there are times when #14 might not be easier downwind but, to isolate this question to how Nicklaus was affected, being as long as anyone of the time it might just have become reachable.
This ties into a larger dynamic with wind conditions, so it really does affect all players in some way. If not #14, was there a hole made substantially easier by this specific wind direction and condition? #2? I have only played the course twice and do not presently benefit from an exact image of the layout of the holes. Nor do I recal the exact wind direction although into from the right is my first instinct.
Thoughts?
Is it reasonable to expect a hurting wind on one hole to compensate the players on another hole? Or vice versa? After all, in theory we start and finish in the same spot so something should balance out.
-
JES: Some things balance out others with regard to wind, but not completely; anytime there is wind the course overall is going to play a bit tougher. Basically, the wind puts some holes out of reach, and even if others are within reach it's hard to make the ball stop near the hole.
I've thought about that a lot in the course of spending years in Bandon, Lubbock, and Tasmania, among other windy sites.
But, the larger point is that good golfers don't ever want to give back their good bounces, they only think it would be fair to excise the bad ones.
-
But, the larger point is that good golfers don't ever want to give back their good bounces, they only think it would be fair to excise the bad ones.
Tom,
I can't really agree with that. In my observation, the best golfers are able to dismiss the effect of luck (both good and bad) on their game. I've heard many top golfers dismiss a shot as being lucky, or just kind of whistle past a bad break.
Of course, there are the complainers out there. But I don't consider these folks to be good golfers. ;)
-
But, the larger point is that good golfers don't ever want to give back their good bounces, they only think it would be fair to excise the bad ones.
I have to see if I can squeeze this onto my tagline.
-
When you're Jack Nicklaus and your flight control is at the highest level, you are likely to be skeptical of design concepts that emphasize bounce.
We all know Jack hit it hard flew it high and landed it soft. That doesn't equate, to me, with having flight control of the highest level. Was Jack's trajectory control on par with Tiger's or Trevino's or Hogan's. I don't know, but it isn't something he's famous for, like they are. I'd be interested if anyone here can comment.
-
When you're Jack Nicklaus and your flight control is at the highest level, you are likely to be skeptical of design concepts that emphasize bounce.
We all know Jack hit it hard flew it high and landed it soft. That doesn't equate, to me, with having flight control of the highest level. Was Jack's trajectory control on par with Tiger's or Trevino's or Hogan's. I don't know, but it isn't something he's famous for, like they are. I'd be interested if anyone here can comment.
Jack was pretty good at getting the ball to land where he wanted it to, don't you think? And because of his high trajectory, his ball didn't roll very far. It's fair to say he invented the modern aerial game that is so often scorned here.
-
Yup, Jack's an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, surrounded by a screwy conundrum.
-
Phil:
If you are the best who ever lived at landing the ball softly where you want to, then you have the advantage over everyone else, whether the course is fair or unfair.
It seems to me that you are defending the position that the best player in golf should always be rewarded for a good shot ... so as long as he drives it well he never has to hit a great shot, and never has to face a situation beyond his abilities, which most golfers face on an everyday basis. That may have been more defensible in the days when it was damned hard to drive the ball consistently well, but it's not anymore. The only way to get a great player to go for a great shot now, is to make him settle for par (or maybe bogey) if he doesn't try it.
-
Tom,
Let's go back to the original premise of this thread. As I understand the situation, there wasn't a good ground option to get the ball on that green and the aerial option was problematical because the green was so firm and lacked depth. So the only hope for the greatest player in the world was to hit the flag from 220 yards! That's screwy. Maybe playing for the front bunker was an option, but aiming for a hazard when the green is easily within reach strikes me as bizarre. To me Jack's point is that despite his skill, he had no real option but was baled out by dumb luck.
No I don't think a player is entitled to a good result from every good shot; indeed, I loved the Open Championship at Royal St. Georges which had enough bad bounces for an entire season - Ben Curtis won for Lord's sakes! But I don't think every Open should be like that, and I can understand why a world class player might not have enjoyed it.
I also think we can be a little condescending when discussing great players and architecture. Jack Nicklaus played a different game than you and me, and maybe he's earned the right to have a different perspective.
Plus I need to up my post count so that I can be a Full Member again!
-
Let's go back to the original premise of this thread. As I understand the situation, there wasn't a good ground option to get the ball on that green and the aerial option was problematical because the green was so firm and lacked depth. So the only hope for the greatest player in the world was to hit the flag from 220 yards! That's screwy. Maybe playing for the front bunker was an option, but aiming for a hazard when the green is easily within reach strikes me as bizarre. To me Jack's point is that despite his skill, he had no real option but was baled out by dumb luck.
Didn't he have the option to play to the right half of the green?
Is that screwy?