Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Adam Clayman on June 15, 2010, 09:08:45 AM
-
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs548.snc3/29991_1371606402533_1002939234_30864702_41629_n.jpg)
Can anyone argue that placing those bunkers on the far side of the fairway makes the hole more difficult?
Playing a delicate cut shot (for a rightie) out of rough, on a side hill lie, is easily one way to identify the better golfer. So why have the powers that be put these bunkers in? A frame of reference also adds to diminishing the difficulty for an accomplished golfer. So why would they do it?
Knowing the justification for all the new work, done to this grande dame, was based on fear of being kept out of the U.S. Open rota. Why would they make this hole easier? Especially on the stretch of holes that were already considered the place to go low?
Anyone?
-
Three bunkers assault my eye. I believe one deep penal bunker would have servered the purpose of adding some variety to the challenge from that side of the fairway.
-
Are those bunkers in play for the pros? I thought they all went to the left of those, but maybe I am seeing the angle wrong, or this is not a photo from the back tee.
John Shimony: When I worked for Pete Dye, he told me that putting a single bunker on the outside of a dogleg just doesn't work. It gives the pros an easy reference point. If they can't reach it, they hit right at it; if they can reach it, they play safely to one side, or club down so they can aim at it. That is why Pete favors gentle doglegs [15-20 degrees from the line of the tee shot] with lots of trouble on the inside and nothing much on the far side.
-
Adam, you nailed it.
Mike
-
Mr. Doak,
That makes sense. I learn something new everyday on this site. Thanks.
-
Agree 100% that it makes the hole easier. A shot from one of those bunkers is easier than the deep rough over there. It also changes the golfers idea of where he needs to go with the tee shot. Without the bunkers it looks like you can just hit it out there,but the approach from the right can be very difficult because of the angle of the green and the front right bunker. Players from that angle bring OB off the back into play because they are using a stronger club to get over the bunker.
Anthony
-
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs548.snc3/29991_1371606402533_1002939234_30864702_41629_n.jpg)
A frame of reference also adds to diminishing the difficulty for an accomplished golfer. So why would they do it?
I guess I missed this line Mr. Clayton. Well put.
-
Adam,
I agree with your sentiments. I feel that the USGA "had" to make some changes to the course, but why fix what ain't broken?
Do you have a photo from the back tee at all? And what's the distance to those bunkers?
Pup
-
Agree 100% that it makes the hole easier. A shot from one of those bunkers is easier than the deep rough over there. It also changes the golfers idea of where he needs to go with the tee shot. Without the bunkers it looks like you can just hit it out there,but the approach from the right can be very difficult because of the angle of the green and the front right bunker. Players from that angle bring OB off the back into play because they are using a stronger club to get over the bunker.
Anthony
Exactly what I was going to say.
-
Players from that angle bring OB off the back into play because they are using a stronger club to get over the bunker.
Anthony
But would you agree with me that the same is still going to happen from coming out of the bunkers? I'd say there is even more chance of a player hitting OB now, because of a thinly hit bunker shot, than hitting a shot too long out of 4 inch thick rough.
-
Michael Taylor, I'm sorry I don't have any more pictures, nor, do I know the distance from the current back tees. Also, I highly doubt the USGA had any input on the impetus for this change. This change reeks of the PBC. As to your last post, a thinly hit shot will not get out of the bunker.
Tom, I'm sure most pros will try to get short and left of them, but, even a pro misses. Early in the round, one may not have figured out how heavy the air is yet, or, how firm the canvas is, and, how and where they are hitting it, that day. Either way, if the justification for this type of bunker is to be penal, the rough was just about as penal as you could get, for the shot demand to this green, making these bunkers anything but penal. IMO, it makes the shot easier.
-
Playing a delicate cut shot (for a rightie) out of rough, on a side hill lie, is easily one way to identify the better golfer. So why have the powers that be put these bunkers in? A frame of reference also adds to diminishing the difficulty for an accomplished golfer. So why would they do it?
Anyone?
Adam,
How exactly does one play a delicate cut shot from 3" rough? This would be a gouge at best; recall Tiger's experience here in 2000.
My recollection is that Arnold Palmer said something to the effect of "I always thought this hillside was wasted/wanting". A perfect location for eye candy. I do agree that dictation does not identify the best thinker on the course.
-
Players from that angle bring OB off the back into play because they are using a stronger club to get over the bunker.
Anthony
But would you agree with me that the same is still going to happen from coming out of the bunkers? I'd say there is even more chance of a player hitting OB now, because of a thinly hit bunker shot, than hitting a shot too long out of 4 inch thick rough.
For players like me,but for the pros it is an easier shot. A flier out of the rough is more dangerous than the bunker. They may can even spin one from those bunkers. How long is that shot..120?
Anthony
-
I think the trees give the player a good referance and the bunker beside them. Curious to see how many drives make those bunkers. Hopefully it is not a driver off the tee with the new tee box. It is an excellent shot makers hole and watching a 3-wood work around the corner is great viewing.
Anthony
-
Great thread. The rough will likely be more than 3" deep. 5-6" of moist Poa annua would be far more difficult than a fairway bunker shot for the pros. It's like swinging through a salad.
Thanks to Tom for the Dye philosophy about a single bunker on the outside of the dogleg. I'm thinking about the Johnny Carson impersonator (Dana Carvey, perhaps?) who would say, "I did not know that."
Does anybody think the whole is more attractive this way? Forgive me in advance for saying I think it looks nice.
-
Does anybody think the whole is more attractive this way? Forgive me in advance for saying I think it looks nice.
Without question. I liked the bunkers.
-
They look pretty unpretty if you ask me.
-
The bunkers look better than a hill full of grass but it does change the way the hole is played if you miss your tee shot. Maybe if they were higher up on the bank resulting in more aesthetics and less strategy change.
Anthony
-
John Shimony: When I worked for Pete Dye, he told me that putting a single bunker on the outside of a dogleg just doesn't work. It gives the pros an easy reference point. If they can't reach it, they hit right at it; if they can reach it, they play safely to one side, or club down so they can aim at it. That is why Pete favors gentle doglegs [15-20 degrees from the line of the tee shot] with lots of trouble on the inside and nothing much on the far side.
If I recall correctly that was the justification for removing a tree in the fairway of a dogleg left par four at Harbor Town. The professionals just aimed right at it.
Mike
-
I posted this picture on another thread. It gives you different perspective regarding location depth and treatment of the bunkers and surrounds.
Also, the players sight line from the back tees is much more from a left side perspective than the one posted above, bringing the tall trees, heavy rough, etc. left of the fairway into view. It also presents a much narrower view of the fairway to the player, foreshortened by the height of the fairway bunker on the left, making it play more like a cape hole - hit it short right and safe, or gamble a bit for a short wedge second shot.
Bunkering on Pebble Beach #3
(http://i767.photobucket.com/albums/xx317/pacemanager/PebbleBeachPre-Open012.jpg)
-
According to Arnie on the walk through video...these were "absolutely necessary" however I would disagree as I would rather hit out of those bunkers than the rough 10 out of 10 times. Looking at the flyover and the walk through, the only bunker that seems relevant is the last one as most guys will just snap a 3 wood around the corner to the left half of the fairway, giving them the best angle (which you can't see from the tee.) The bunks actually help you play this shot by giving you the aforementioned point of reference. Clearly, it will be much easier to stop a ball from the bunker than the rough.
http://www.usopen.com/en_US/course/index.html
-
From the middle of the back tees, it looks like about 270 yards to the middle bunker, so a the longer pros will have to take a little off. Without wind, wouldn't they just fly it over the trees to the left of the bunkers, or are the trees too high and too close to the tee?
Recovery from the bunkers would be easier than the rough for the pros, but if they get up in the eyebrows it would be tougher.
The pros would be trying to lay up short of the (U.S. Open) rough on that side or drawing it around the trees and down the fairway anyway, so I'm not sure how the new bunkers would affect their strategy in any way. The penalty for an error in distance control would likely be reduced by the bunkers.
Of the maybe 500 tee shots on the hole during the week, what percentage would find the previous rough or or the new bunkers? I'd guess it would be pretty small.
The look of the bunkers is not offensive to me.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/PB3.jpg)
-
What about for Joe Schmoe golfer? I feel like these bunkers make the hole more tougher for the average player.
I do not mind the look of the bunkers, they do not offend my untrained eye
-
Weren't most guys just bombing it over the trees during the AT&T? There are only three things I can see putting a stop to that: a strong headwind, severe rough near that cart path or a grandstand placement.
I remember Dustin Johnson having something like 55 yds.into the green.
-
I can't answer why, but these bunkers were not added by the USGA for the Open. They were put in a few years ago, and I don't think they were done for the Open at that time.
-
With or without the bunkers it plays like a cape hole because of what is down the left.
Anthony
-
I can't answer why, but these bunkers were not added by the USGA for the Open. They were put in a few years ago, and I don't think they were done for the Open at that time.
I was just looking at the same image that Bryan posted above and Google Earth has that photo dated 2007.
-
Frankly that's why AP doesn't understand golf design -- the additional bunkers don't make the hole any better. As Adam said correctly -- they just become an aiming point for the top players to work off in some form or another.
Guys, the 3rd is a pushover hole anyway -- the strong players simply chuckle at the bunkers on the right and go about business with launching one down the left side for a puppy wedge into the green.
-
As I have mentioned before, I think these bunkers only serve to make the hole easier.
A pro would much rather be in any of those bunkers than in the rough. They can control the spin and get clean contact.
With the rough there, it was nigh on impossible for a pro to get close to a right hand pin position. Now they can.
-
I have read reports on here from folks at the course that the bunkers are being prepared with 2 inches of fluffy sand to increase the random lies players should expect. I have also read that the rough is being maintained pretty low by US Open standards immediately adjacent to the fairway.
Assuming both are true, wouldn't the players much prefer the rough to the bunkers? Also...the bunkers carry a risk the rough simply does not...the little nooks and crannies where a player is just hoping to get the ball back in play. At worst, the rough will force the player to just play to the front edge of the green.
I do agree that the existence of the bunkers at all reduces any lack of conviction a player would have from the tee...now they know they have to turn it over or lay up...when it's just grass it's not quite as ingrained.
-
I think it looks ok and it definitely looks more intimidating. The tee shot did not look intimidating before...
-
Question for those that really know the hole...what are you dealing with when you hit it 280 off the tee but miss the fairway left? Are there trees early that you cannot get over right off the tee? The overhead Bryan posted makes it look playable, and clearly the preferred angle...why wouldn't everybody just hit it way left as Macho Matt suggested?
-
Question for those that really know the hole...what are you dealing with when you hit it 280 off the tee but miss the fairway left? Are there trees early that you cannot get over right off the tee? The overhead Bryan posted makes it look playable, and clearly the preferred angle...why wouldn't everybody just hit it way left as Macho Matt suggested?
The trees are in play. You have to draw around them. From the back I don't see how a player can go over them.
Anthony
-
Anthony,
The trees right off the tee? Or the ones up by the fairway?
-
What about for Joe Schmoe golfer? I feel like these bunkers make the hole more tougher for the average player.
I do not mind the look of the bunkers, they do not offend my untrained eye
I don't mind the look (eye candy) and agree with most that they don't make the hole more difficult, except as Michael says, Joe Schmoe golfers will be in them all day long. So they have toughened the course for the average player (and Arnie) and made it easier for the Tour guys.
-
Jim,
The ones right off the tee don't look too tall, but they are only 60 to 70 yards away. Can the players reliably get it up that quick and carry it 280 yards. Is it worth the risk? If you check out the USGA web site and go to hole 3, they have a picture from the tee. The walk through commentary seems to suggest that they think the trees will scare away the players from attempting the aggressive line, and opt for a layup to the fairway. It's still a short hole and a birdie opportunity. Not sure why AP thinks the addition of the bunkers makes it a great hole. If most are laying up anyway, most should not be in the bunkers or rough over there anyway.
http://www.usopen.com/en_US/course/index.html (http://www.usopen.com/en_US/course/index.html)
-
Thanks for the link Bryan...as to the risk, I just don't know...I think these guys generally like to eliminate as many hazards as possible with club and shot selection. Driver over the trees would seem to eliminate everything except real bad lies in the low left rough...and the potential that they don't quite get it over the early trees...which is always fun to see...
Hitting a hybrid seems to keep every hazard on the hole in play...and turns a potential birdie hole into a middle iron.
-
Geoff Shackelford posted today from the course regarding the 3rd hole:
to actually get to see this atrocious addition in person was particularly disheartening because it has stripped a wonderful bit of subtlety from the course. Prior to the bunker installation, drives not drawn around the corner would run through the fairway into rough, leaving a hanging flyer lie with OB lurking over the green. Barring a really terrible lie, the fairway bunker shot is now easier to control and the scarier elements for the elite player largely eliminated. Plus, they are woefully out of proportion for the hole and look more like beamed in Bay Hill bunkers than Pebble Beach originals.
-
I, to,think these bunkers are a non-positive.
If any 'improvement' might be contemplated, how would a cross bunker perpendcular to the slope but across the closely mowed area about 80 to 100 yards from the green?
Similar to but a variation from the second hole.
-
When I was there someone had an old yardage book from the 60's. At that time the center bunker, short of the fairway, was just a nasty looking little pot. (Very cool looking ask Michaud) Now it appears to have a sea lion swoop to it. What's with that? What was fascinating about the old yardage book was the carry distance of that pot, from the old back tees?....150 yards.
Great thread. The rough will likely be more than 3" deep. 5-6" of moist Poa annua would be far more difficult than a fairway bunker shot for the pros. It's like swinging through a salad.
Thanks to Tom for the Dye philosophy about a single bunker on the outside of the dogleg. I'm thinking about the Johnny Carson impersonator (Dana Carvey, perhaps?) who would say, "I did not know that."
Does anybody think the whole is more attractive this way? Forgive me in advance for saying I think it looks nice.
John, Eye candy is eye candy. When it's obvious construction, against the flow of the terrain, it jars my eye on an aesthetic level. I suppose, It puts the accomplished golfer at ease. I would not know.
Sean, I do recall how the naked natural hillside, was awkwardly dominate in my mind's eye, looming like a green wall menace if I bailed right. I would assume, that awkwardness puts all players, ill at ease?
Sully, Failure to carry the trees is extremely penal (Or it was 10 yrs ago) The trees sit a ravine that also comes into play right of 16. Almost a guaranteed lost ball when it was unkept.
Isn't it always the U.S Open where you hear those telling words "Get in the bunker? Isn't this just another example of the non-penal nature of bunkers at a us open?
I wonder if Mike Davis ever considered moving the tees up on this hole, tempting the players to go for it. I know the fourth is being considered, so I suspect this one wasn't. But, it sure could test these guys restraint.
Bryan, I agreed with everything you said in your first post sans aesthetics. To me they're hideous warts placed on sacred ground.
-
Adam,
Wow, "hideous warts placed on sacred ground"!! Sounds like your feelings have more to do with blasphemy than aesthetics. ;)
-
Not really Brian. I threw the sacred ground in there for affect. Plus a little inside info on the building of the new fifth and those houses. I really have a bug up my ass with the company, because, the company, that has been made rich and famous because of golf, shows so little respect for the finer points of their architecture, it boggles the mind. Mike Keiser is taking their target market, and I for one am very happy for that.
-
I was wondering if the bunkers weren't partially placed to take the eye away from the dreadful buildings in the background?
I was also wondering if there couldn't be fairway out past the bunkers but with a centre-line bunker or two cutting off the huge draw a bit. I do agree with others that something doesn't look quite right with the bunker scheme.
Ciao
-
I was wondering if the bunkers weren't partially placed to take the eye away from the dreadful buildings in the background?
I was also wondering if there couldn't be fairway out past the bunkers but with a centre-line bunker or two cutting off the huge draw a bit. I do agree with others that something doesn't look quite right with the bunker scheme.
Ciao
What dreadful buildings? I don't recall any buildings in the background.
-
Here is the 1929 version of the bunkering at #3. In this case they chose to fill the barranca (parts of at least) with sand. Egan & Co did that on a number of holes, which gives those bunkers a natural appearance IMO. The dogleg is a little more severe than it appears in this drawing.
Is thick rough through the fairway a worse penalty than sand? Considering the configuration of the green and the greenside bunkering I think it may be.
-
Sean, Those are corporate tents.
-
Sully, Failure to carry the trees is extremely penal (Or it was 10 yrs ago) The trees sit a ravine that also comes into play right of 16. Almost a guaranteed lost ball when it was unkept.
Adam,
I was actually wondering about the ball that carries those trees but misses the fairway left...how bad a spot is that? Can they get it there or is it way out of eye-line? Google Earth seems to say it's only about 280 to the fairway straight over those trees and I'd wager that 75% or more of the field can comfortable do that.
-
Great line by Geoff S -- "Bay Hill bunkers" -- at Pebble Beach.
Way to go Arn !
-
Sully, I would think anywhere within the rough will be a tough up and down. Maybe not a tough par, but as we saw Tiger ten years ago, this was his only hiccup that week.
The angle from the far left will probably have to carry the left green side bunker (If I'm understanding your question). WHile there's plenty of green to work with, unless the pin is up front, there is ob long and nasty deep bunkers to the right of that shot.
I would think the players are thinking birdie here and pulling out driver will be the only way to bring 'other' into play. The prudent shot is likely a soft draw 235-265, right of the trees, leaving at most 9 iron. But again, my thinking is not necessarily of the current set-up.
-
Anthony- at yesterday's practice round, I watched Phil and Dustin Johnson go right over the trees. Johnson pulled it off and had a great line to the green. Phil pushed his slightly and had some knarly rough and the #4 bleachers to deal with. The bunker/right rough discussion is almost a red-herring for this hole. The true risk/ reward off the tee box is the left trees. BTW- Pebble looks wonderful and scary. I watched the players practice a lot of chips on 14. You can tell that is the green to be feared most. Also, most guys playing an iron or hybrid off 8- they don't want any part of the cliff off the tee. I think we will see a lot of long iron 2nd shots at 8!
-
I have been meaning to start a thread on this hole.
When I played PB for the first time earlier this year, this was one of the holes that surprised me in a good way. I don't dispute Matt's assertion that this hole is a pushover for the pros. But for this 13 handicap who hits his drives about 230, I thought it was a really good hole.
Off the tee, going over the tree on the left was not an option for me (even from the white tees). But I did have to decide whether to take an aggressive line that brought the tree on the left into play (but would give a shorter approach from the preferred angle on the left side of the fairway) or play safe and leave a longer approach. I decided to take an aggressive line, chickened out and pushed the tee shot right and into the new bunkers. Things did not go well from there.
To my untrained eye, I did not find the look of the bunkers objectionable but I certainly agree that for the pros it made the hole easier. For me . . . not so much.
One final note, the hole reminded me of the second hole at the Pete Dye Golf Club in W.Va. Anybody else see that?
-
David,
"To my untrained eye, I did not find the look of the bunkers objectionable"
Let's look closely at the lone bunker in the fore ground. As I stated earlier, ten years ago this was a perfectly placed pot bunker cut into the slight rise that leads into the fairway, at the far right edge of what becomes the ravine, that extends towards stillwater cove and has all the trees.
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs548.snc3/29991_1371606402533_1002939234_30864702_41629_n.jpg)
It would appear this lone bunker was built by dumping dirt into a mound and then sculpting the sea lion (boomerange) swoop out of it. (Anyone who builds, correct me, please?)
I really didn't notice how that mound sticks out before, when I called it a wart. But, it sure does fit that description.
The top lines of the bunker on the outside of the dog leg appear to be built up. Is that correct? If it is? I'd hate to see that leeward side of that complex of bunkers in the rainy season.
-
The top lines of the bunker on the outside of the dog leg appear to be built up. Is that correct? If it is? I'd hate to see that leeward side of that complex of bunkers in the rainy season.
If I recall correctly, the bunkers on the outside of the dog leg are set into the hill so I don't think the top lines were built up. But I defer to people who have a better knowledge of the course.
-
Any idea how many balls went in these bunkers yesterday? Just curious how it played.
-
Sean, I don't know and I don't know enough about shotlink to figure it out.
On another thread I predicted few would go right of the trees on 18. The one drive I saw...The guy went right of the trees into the first cut.
Can anyone get the answer to Sean's excellent question?
Todays hole location on 3 is gonna be a tough one.
-
Mike Keiser is taking their target market, and I for one am very happy for that.
Mike Keiser is going to need to build a bigger airport, add more hotel (not bungalows) rooms, more restaurants, shopping boutiques, a day spa and allow carts to compete with Pebble's target market ...
-
Adam,
Did you notice Phil made birdie from those fairway bunkers today?
-
Bill, I didn't know that. But, it does validate the analysis that the hole is much easier for the pros from those bunkers. If he had been in the rough, birdie would've had to be likely a chip in.
I watched a lot of the coverage today, and I did notice that had not seen the 3rd hole.
BTW, Just in case anyone reading this thread didn't know it, the 3rd was one of Dr. Mackenzie's favorite holes at PB.
-
Bill, I didn't know that. But, it does validate the analysis that the hole is much easier for the pros from those bunkers. If he had been in the rough, birdie would've had to be likely a chip in.
I watched a lot of the coverage today, and I did notice that had not seen the 3rd hole.
BTW, Just in case anyone reading this thread didn't know it, the 3rd was one of Dr. Mackenzie's favorite holes at PB.
Yup, Phil hit a bunker shot to the middle of the green and spun it back to a front pin position...
-
McDowell has just hit his tee shot into one of the bunkers. Be interesting to see how he does. I maintain this is an easier shot than if he'd been in the rough as he can spin the ball.
Edit: He was able to spin the ball and hold the green. A shot that would have been almost impossible had he been in the rough.
Those bunkers need removing ASAP in my opinion.
-
I like the bunkers on the outside edge of #3. Its a short hole and you aught to expect precision. This way really anything other than a proper shot is penalized. What is the problem with that? I like them on the outside corner of the hole.
-
I like the bunkers on the outside edge of #3. Its a short hole and you aught to expect precision. This way really anything other than a proper shot is penalized. What is the problem with that? I like them on the outside corner of the hole.
The problem as I see it is that the bunkers help the players. They are not penalised for going in the bunkers as they can get spin on the ball.
If that's thick rough, no way can they get spin on the ball which makes for a much harder shot.
They would much rather be in the bunkers than the rough.
-
I like the bunkers on the outside edge of #3. Its a short hole and you aught to expect precision. This way really anything other than a proper shot is penalized. What is the problem with that? I like them on the outside corner of the hole.
The problem as I see it is that the bunkers help the players. They are not penalised for going in the bunkers as they can get spin on the ball.
If that's thick rough, no way can they get spin on the ball which makes for a much harder shot.
They would much rather be in the bunkers than the rough.
So much for GCA guys wanting options and strategic features on a hole huh? I think they provide equal penalty to rough and make the player think more off the tee since they are in view; rough is not really in the view of the player.
-
John, they cant spin it out of rough, while a ball in the middle of the bunker is almost as easy as fairway for the pros. As I said in my post above, Phil was able to play to the middle of the green and spin it back to the front pin on Friday. No way he can do that from rough.
-
John, they cant spin it out of rough, while a ball in the middle of the bunker is almost as easy as fairway for the pros. As I said in my post above, Phil was able to play to the middle of the green and spin it back to the front pin on Friday. No way he can do that from rough.
But that side of the fairway is a much worse angle to the hole than the left side. I think that having the bunkers there puts a bigger mental hazard on the right side of the hole than rough does. Even for tour guys, you can mess with their minds.
-
John, of course it is the worse side, and FAR worse with rough. You can mess with a pro's mind, but he knows what he can do: (spin a short iron from a fairway bunker) and cant do: (spin it from heavy rough.)
-
John, of course it is the worse side, and FAR worse with rough. You can mess with a pro's mind, but he knows what he can do: (spin a short iron from a fairway bunker) and cant do: (spin it from heavy rough.)
I don't know, I saw some shots spin pretty good coming from the rough, so long as the ball doesn't bury down, which isn't all that often, maybe 1/4 of the time.
-
John, of course it is the worse side, and FAR worse with rough. You can mess with a pro's mind, but he knows what he can do: (spin a short iron from a fairway bunker) and cant do: (spin it from heavy rough.)
As Dustin Johnson has just demonstrated. He has just hit his 4th shot from what would have been an impossible location in the rough. However, he was in a bunker and was able to spin it and stop it pin high.
He got rewarded for hitting a bad shot by being able to recover.
-
I think this particular thread on those massive bunkers on the far side of the 3rd fairway is a very interesting discussion indeed and I also realize my new friend from abroad Tom Birkert hates them and I think he made a pretty good case why he hates them.
However, I would say that all the photos of that hole on this particular thread do not exactly show what those pros were looking at from the tee they were playing (I stood behind that tee and watched a number of groups during the practice rounds).
I suppose the new back tees are far enough back (from the original design---maybe adding 40-50 yards to the hole) and also far enough to the left to give those players a perspective we aren't familiar with or seeing from the photos on this thread.
What they see is a pretty shallow fairway (in line with the tee shot) that appears almost perpindicular to the line of play. They also can't see the open fairway beyond the last bunker on the far side of the fairway because of the trees on the left on the near side.
Given all that that tee shot appears to confuse them in various ways, the net result being that they try to hit something like a utility club or even 3 wood really high right at those bunkers hoping it gets over the bunkers on the near side and doesn't roll into the bunkers on the far side.
For the others, their strategy seems to be to just take driver and try to take it right over those trees on the left or hook it around them and hope for the best and that the ball doesn't hook too far left (which many did). In the second round Dustin Johnson couldn't have had more than 60 yards in from the middle of the fairway!
If they use the latter strategy and do it successfully they can't really tell what happened until they walk out fairly near the fairway.
This is an unusual hole now for sure. I don't really recall a fairway that appears to be almost perpindicular (90 degrees---even though its actually more like 75 degrees from that new back tee) to the tee shot as this one is now or at least appears from the tee to be.
-
Tom, The hole's fairway has always had that orientation. Like you say, it's probably 75 degrees but, to the player, appears 90.