[Adam Clayman]

Pete, no argument that the shrinkage is lamentable. Or, should I say, the shrinkage is normal and not addressing the issue, prior to this much shrinkage, is regrettable. But either way the course is the course and the tournament awards the player that scores the fewest in 72 holes. The value of par on any one hole is irrelevant. to that final outcome. If I were on the bag, I would suggest a high fade choosing the club that if missed, would miss short in the bunker, figuring par from there is not too difficult

 As far as what Egan/Neville expected...Considering the length of hole, the ability of players at that time, and the equipment they used, I'm not so confident that the dilemma (shot test) these players faced today is much different. Granted, the firm green, especially the downslopes, was key to not holding the green.

 

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
Are you saying that if they called #17 a par four at 210 yards it would be considered unfair?  It's a 210 yard hole - figure out the best way to play the hole in as few shots as possible and move on.  Same with #14.  If you can't hit the small green from a 100 yards with a sand wedge, too bad (there are smaller target areas at Augusta National from much longer shots).  Play long at #14 and chip back or try to get closer to the green so you only have 50 yards,...  The four days every 10 years when the greens are rolling at 13, it's a tough hole.  So be it!
Mark

[JWinick]

If hitting the green becomes a matter of luck, than they have gone too far.   In short of rebuilding the green for the next open, the other alternative would have been to play from the 180-190 range.   Resort guests don't play under US open conditions, so it would still have provided a very difficult test at that distance.

Jwinick. You do realize 185 is the distance the resort guests play the hole? Why shouldn't the penultimate hole be of a superior shot test? Can't hold the green is a misnomer. 7 did so on Sunday and more did so on Thursday. What that tells me is that the end of story is that a really good pilot can land a 747 on an air craft carrier.

[Adam Clayman]

J, The conditions for this championship were not over the top for Pebble. The rough at Pebble is nasty at 2" and, is (was) often at that height or higher for resort guests. I'm not saying all the time, but, enough to make your statement that they don't play on those conditions, qualifiable at best. Also, Mark Michaud would get the greens to US. Open conditions every June, when he was Super. As a matter of fact, The resort guests that played the course between 4 and 1 weeks prior, this year, played under conditions that might have been worse than we saw on TV, roughwise. (not firmness) The rough was cut down just before the championship. The first time I played it (as a paying customer) was in June and the 7th was playing to about 66 yards, from 107 y, to a back left pin. I hit my high soft shot to the very front edge of the left side of the green, only to have it bounce like a superball, ending up 3 feet into the back rough.

Maybe the USGA is under the same delusion I am?  And that is... Theses guys are SOOOOOO good, a 3' foot landing spot, is, or should be, in their wheelhouse. If not, I'll have to say something to the next young whippersnapper that starts whining like a little girl, about missing his spot by a foot.
 

[Bob_Huntley]

From Shack's article:

"There is also the delicate issue of who supervises the work. Pebble Beach investor Arnold Palmer has been overseeing changes to the course since 2000. Palmer makes occasional visits and details his thoughts to the Arnold Palmer Design Company staff in Florida, who then draw up plans for new bunkers that are sent to Pebble Beach for execution.

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2010-06/golf-shackelford-usopen-0628#ixzz0s5nxvq00


It was this sort of design from Florida nonsense, that caused the Shore Course contract to be cancelled.


Bob

[John Moore II]

From Shack's article:

"There is also the delicate issue of who supervises the work. Pebble Beach investor Arnold Palmer has been overseeing changes to the course since 2000. Palmer makes occasional visits and details his thoughts to the Arnold Palmer Design Company staff in Florida, who then draw up plans for new bunkers that are sent to Pebble Beach for execution.

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2010-06/golf-shackelford-usopen-0628#ixzz0s5nxvq00


It was this sort of design from Florida nonsense, that caused the Shore Course contract to be cancelled.


Bob

If they do a major reworking of Pebble, I hope they get someone other than Mr. Palmer to do the work. Someone with a better pedigree of course design to do the work; someone better at design.

[Adam Clayman]

JK, They've already done a ton of work to the bunkers. The look is nowhere near what it was just nine years ago. The evidence of some of the work, that I saw from the TV this last month can be seen on #3, of course, but also, those back bunkers on 17. They use to be random nasty little pots. Now they're more akin to something shipped in from Florida. I also noticed new bunkers added on #4 that take away from the old feeling. And, please don't get me started on #15?

[Matt_Ward]

Mark,

When are we going to play partner ?

The 17th at PB is a par-3 hole -- that assumes that a player can hit a shot with flawless execution -- not the insertion or preponderance of times that sheer luck intrudes itself -- and then reap the benefit that comes with it. The 17th at PB, in the manner it was set-up, doesn't do that.

Mark, your comments are, with all due respect -- preposteros. The hole should not be played with someone hitting it short and then having to get up and down for a three because THE GREEN itself cannot hold shots from the 218-yard tees when a tight left pin placement is used.

The simple solution for a tight left pin placement is move the tee box up sufficiently for a shorter club to be used. I want to see skill rewarded -- not assinine set-ups that reduce the outcome to just luck. I believe Mike Davis understands that and his post comments on #17 seem to realize that what was done there had no relationship with skill and flawless execution.

Let's hope we do play before the NEXT us open at PB !

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
If I am not mistaken, wasn't #3 at Winged Foot (on the card a 210 yard "par three") played by the eventual Open winner in that manner because it was nearly impossible to hold the green with an approach shot.  He laid up short, pitched on, made his putt, and went on to #4.  Your are too hung up on convention and fairness Matt   

Just to be CLEAR - you don't permanently change a hole for an event that takes place for four days once every ten years when all the rest of the time, the hole is perfectly fine.  I've played Pebble 30 or 40 times and never had a problem with either #14 or #17.  If anything was messed up is was the setup, NOT the architecture!!
Mark

[Garland Bayley]

"What that tells me is that the end of story is that a really good pilot can land a 747 on an air craft carrier."

That might be true but I most certainly will not be on board...

Actually, I suspect most good pilots could land a 747 on an air craft carrier! But, can you imagine the tail hook and cable system it would take to get them stopped? Maybe the USGA green section and the I&B guys should look into balls with tail hooks.

[Garland Bayley]

... A par-3 hole should provide an opportunity for the well-played shot to hit and stay near the target when executed flawlessly...

Matt,

In case you are unclear on the rules, they don't give the trophy to the person who makes the most pars, or who make the most GIRs for that matter.

[Richard Choi]

Hmmm... here is a video of 747 landing on an aircraft carrier (in MS Flight Simulator).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak-GPZ24oI8

Based on that video, I would say it is impossible. First, I am not sure you can build a cable that can withstand that force. Second, I am not sure you can build a hook that can withstand the force. Third, the pilot would have severe internal damages from the abrupt deceleration.

[Garland Bayley]

... should provide an opportunity for the well-played shot to hit and stay near the target when executed flawlessly ...

Actually, when you take just this part of Matt's statement, you see the sheer hypocrisy of it. Golf does not, and should not guarantee that a well-played shot should stay near its target when it lands.

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

The 3rd at WF/W CAN be played short and then pitched on as Casper did. Where's the bailout area of equal measure with the 17th at PB?

The issue for Casper was NOT about hitting and holding the green - but in dealing with tiny opening that was there and the nature of the pear-shaped green itself. Missing left or right would only compound the problem. Laying up worked well -- for him -- that particular time -- on THAT particular hole.

Mark, do not use a single aberation and then hoist it up the flagpole and say SEE this.

The 17th at PB failed as a hole and Geoff S's comments in Golf World are spot on. The issue is that PB doesn't want to change things to the hole because how it would impact their bottom line -- that would mean closing the hole so that the ORIGINAL dimensions of the green could be re-established -- check out the photos that Geoff had posted in that article -- big difference indeed.

Mark, you often embrace -- wrong word -- HUG -- the nature of originality and how the original intent of the past should be kept. How does that thinking NOT apply to the situation we see today with the 17th at PB?

Mark, the hole is perfectly fine -- when ordinary people play to the far left side with a 150-yard shot in operation. Not from 218 yards and NOT after the green has been firmed up to reject just about anything hit into it. Mark,m be sure to read Geoff's article and look closely at the photos -- the set-up and the nature of how the hole itself has changed over the years were both in operation for the US Open..

[Matt_Ward]

Garland:

Let me help sort out your self-imposed confusion on what I said.

I said -- if a shot is FLAWLESSLY played then the reward should be presented. #17 on Sunday for the final round of the US Open was gotcha golf in full display. Maybe you can appreciate --- even relish -- holes set-up in mini golf fashion save for the insertion of the clown's mouth and bowling pins.

Do yourself a huge favor and check out the stats for the hole -- especially Sunday. Even Mike Davis, the USGA's guru on set-ups admitted as much. You might also want to catch up on some reading on the subject at-hand regarding the article by Geoff S in Golf World.

When you reduce golf design to 100% luck then skill, and especially those without it, are then combined together. That's not a game -- that's silliness.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland:

Let me help sort out your self-imposed confusion on what I said.

I said -- if a shot is FLAWLESSLY played then the reward should be presented. #17 on Sunday for the final round of the US Open was gotcha golf in full display. Maybe you can appreciate --- even relish -- holes set-up in mini golf fashion save for the insertion of the clown's mouth and bowling pins.

Do yourself a huge favor and check out the stats for the hole -- especially Sunday. Even Mike Davis, the USGA's guru on set-ups admitted as much. You might also want to catch up on some reading on the subject at-hand regarding the article by Geoff S in Golf World.

When you reduce golf design to 100% luck then skill, and especially those without it, are then combined together. That's not a game -- that's silliness.

Matt,

Maybe you don't understand the definition of "FLAWLESSLY"! Apparently 7 people played their shots flawlessly on 17 on Sunday. The rest deserved what they got.

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
I did not read Geoff's write-up (probably should).  All I know is even I can land and hold a ball on the green from 218 yards to that back pin location (when the greens are not rock hard).  That is a set up issue.  If the USGA wanted to play from that tee to that pin, they should have made the green more receptive - case closed.  Having said all this, I am very much an advocate of restoration work.  I will be out there again in two weeks and will look at that green.  If expansion is possible without complete rebuilding, then there is merit in the idea. 

As for #14, I would not touch it.  Change the set up the next time the best players in the world are in town (so they don't complain).
Mark

[TEPaul]

"Just to be CLEAR - you don't permanently change a hole for an event that takes place for four days once every ten years when all the rest of the time, the hole is perfectly fine.  I've played Pebble 30 or 40 times and never had a problem with either #14 or #17.  If anything was messed up is was the setup, NOT the architecture!!"



Mark:

That point you made is of course the most accurate and intelligent one in this discussion. The "fix" on that hole for a US Open does not really need to involve changing the architecture of that green but only the firmness of that green surface. Obviously for the shot required on that hole on Sunday by Tour pros (basically something like a high 4 iron) the green surface was too firm on Sunday. The crew could've fixed that in less than an hour and next time (2019) they very likely will.

[Sean Leary]

This is the first year I remember hearing widespread complaining about 14 (and it started at the AT&T). And 17 didn't play that difficult to hit in 2000, or 1992. So it really must be a set-up issue more than anything, right?

[Adam Clayman]

Sean, I think so. The shaving of the bank directly next to that left top shelf is the only change I can think of. FAscinating how such a small presentation change can make a hole inadequate. Or should I say, expose these players inadequacies.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, #14 green architecturally is probably a bit more questionable than #17. If you ask me the absolute most significant shot of that tournament was McDowell's recovery from behind the green on #14 on Sunday. THANK GOD that ball stopped just where it did and did not go down off the front of the green. Had it gone off the front I felt that single shot might have completely called into question the entire tournament set-up something akin to the controversy created by the pin position on #18 at Olympic or the situation on #7 at Shinnecock. This kind of little thing is just another example of the small fates involved in tournament golf at that level. But it's in the books now, and again, THANK GOD that shot of Macdowell's on Sunday stopped where it did on #14 and allowed him to hold that hole to just a bogie! Had those Pebble greens been a bit less bumpy than they were I really doubt Graeme McDowell would be the current US Open Champion.

[Terry Lavin]

In my opinion, #14 green architecturally is probably a bit more questionable than #17. If you ask me the absolute most significant shot of that tournament was McDowell's recovery from behind the green on #14 on Sunday. THANK GOD that ball stopped just where it did and did not go down off the front of the green. Had it gone off the front I felt that single shot might have completely called into question the entire tournament set-up something akin to the controversy created by the pin position on #18 at Olympic or the situation on #7 at Shinnecock. This kind of little thing is just another example of the small fates involved in tournament golf at that level. But it's in the books now, and again, THANK GOD that shot of Macdowell's on Sunday stopped where it did on #14 and allowed him to hold that hole to just a bogie! Had those Pebble greens been a bit less bumpy than they were I really doubt Graeme McDowell would be the current US Open Champion.

I'll second that emotion!

[Eric Johnson]

Sean, I think so. The shaving of the bank directly next to that left top shelf is the only change I can think of. FAscinating how such a small presentation change can make a hole inadequate. Or should I say, expose these players inadequacies.

I think that was there in '92?  Pretty sure it was there in 1995.  I think the fairway cut should be expanded around the entire green complex.  From 15 tee almost to the path on the west side.

[Adam Clayman]

Eric, For the life of me I can't definitively recall how that left bank was presented in '98-'01. In my mind, I thought it was rough, next to the foot or so of a collar  Certainly the rear has always been shaved. I agree that the whole surround would be better low mowed, but that's true of almost any hole. 

How do you think they should deal with the right side of the green? Is it practical to keep it at a collar cut, or some slower speed? Not for pinning, but to stop the serious ping pong affect when a great player plays a poor shot?

I don't agree there's anything wrong with the green architecturally, but, because of expected green speeds, there is a problem with that right side of the green. I'm shocked TePaul, and others feel the greens architecture is the problem. So what, the upper shelf is the only falttish spot pinnable in today's world. Weren't most Old School Par 5's built with small greens, since most all approach shots, were third shot wedges into them?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()