[peter_mcknight]

First of all, nobody would consider building a course like Pebble with the extremely small sized greens it possesses.  Perhaps that is part of the genius of its architecture.

Pebble, when firm greens are present, is a very difficult challenge because the greens, save for the 5th, are all under 4,000 sqft.  If I remember correctly, the 18th used to be the largest green at 3,800 until the new 5th came into existence.

I love the 14th hole and would choose it to be one of my par 5s on a dream course.  At one point in the telecast, they did show the stroke average for the 4th round at 5.34 (it averaged 5.39 for the US Open in 2000).

I believe Pebble is one of those type of courses that, if there was a 15mph breeze, the course transforms itself from fair but difficult to quite the bear because one's short game will get plenty of work and you can't short side yourself at Pebble (e.g. hole .

Pebble is the greatest meeting of land and sea anywhere...if I could afford it, I would go back in a heartbeat!

[Jerry Kluger]

Is there a reason why they keep poa greens at Pebble, I would think that perhaps some different grass and perhaps some more contour on some of the greens might make the course more of a test for some of the best players.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Jerry - do you really think the course isn't enough of a test now?  See the scores yesterday?  

In any case, poa annua is exceedingly difficult to keep OUT of greens in Northern California.  It can be done, but it takes extreme effort, expense, luck.  Once courses get fully poa annua - like Pebble - it's usually seen as a good thing - because 100% poa greens can be the best in the world.

They do get bumpy though late in the day, for many reasons.

And if they keep Tiger Woods away, well...

Seems silly to me to re-do all 18 greens for one guy, but this isn't any ordinary one guy.

 

[A.G._Crockett]

In any case, poa annua is exceedingly difficult to keep OUT of greens in Northern California.  It can be done, but it takes extreme effort, expense, luck.  Once courses get fully poa annua - like Pebble - it's usually seen as a good thing - because 100% poa greens can be the best in the world.

Tom,
I have never played on full poa greens; here in the SE, poa is a spring nuisance that burns out in the summer.  I'm very curious about this, though.  Why do you say they are potentially the best greens?  I'll take your word for this, but would love to hear you elaborate.  Speed?  Grain?  The combo?

[Tom Huckaby]

AGC - well remember, I'm neither an agronomist nor do I play one on TV.

 

I just have heard this from many other people as well - that fully poa greens are praised far more than reviled.  Not that many courses have gone this route though - it takes a LONG time to get them that way - so my experience with them is somewhat limited.  But... when they are fully poa, they can be exceedingly smooth and fast and stay healthy pretty damn well.  That is, you don't have to come close to killing the grass to get it really fast like you tend to have to do with bent.  Remember we also don't do bermuda here.  

That's the extent of my exceedingly amateur knowledge.

Exceedingly is the second word of the day.  The first is poleax.

 

[Jordan Wall]

AG,

I know you asked Tom but as a frequent player of almost nothing but poa greens in Seattle I can tell you that when maintained right they are great!  They always roll true, when maintained right can get extremely fast, yet are fair to the player.  I certainly like Poa better then Bent and Bermuda.  Like Tom said, they are incredibly smooth.

They are great!!

The best, well thats on opinion, but they are certainly my favorite

 

[A.G._Crockett]

Thanks, gentlemen; I aspire to find out for myself someday.

[Bob_Huntley]

A.G.,

For the first eighty or so years on the Monterey Peninsula, poa reigned supreme. Unfortunately some name players became involved in the governance of one of our resorts and decided that the weed should be "utterly cry'it doon."

Our own club is experimenting with other grasses, the excuse being that we need to excise some sort of nematode problem.

Hey, Pete Galea, where are you when I need you?

Bob

[Bill_McBride]

In the Southeast, poa annua is a nuisance weed (unlike poa trivialis which is an overseed, deliberately planted over bermuda and hybrids for winter thick and green grass).  Poa annua comes on very strong after the last frost and outgrows the grass on the greens, whether bent or bermuda.  When it gets a good stand going, it is like broccoli in the warm afternoons, grows fast and will knock putts off line like a good spikemark.  So it is the subject of eradication, which isn't always satisfactory.

This is the Southeast, as in Virginia, versus the Deep South, as in Pensacola, where I have never seen poa annua.

[Tom Huckaby]

Hey, Pete Galea, where are you when I need you?

Bob

Side note - not only IS Pete an agronomist, but wouldn't he be GREAT playing one on TV?

 

[Brian_Sleeman]

Bob: I was very pleased with the greens at MPCC, and thought they (and the ones at Olympic) were the best we played in our time there.  CPC and Pasa were the worst in terms of nematodes.  If there's a problem, I certainly didn't notice it.

[Mike Benham]

Is there a reason why they keep poa greens at Pebble, I would think that perhaps some different grass and perhaps some more contour on some of the greens might make the course more of a test for some of the best players.  

I always chuckle at the comment about the need for more contour at Pebble.

True, the greens aren't rollar coaster-like but based on the size of the greens there are plenty of times where you can't afford to be above the hole ... holes #1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 come to mind in a quick review.

[Tim Gavrich]

As wonderful as it is, it just wasn't that interesting to watch today.  It might have been the fault of Weir's horrible play, but no one even came close to challenging Oberholser toward the end.  

It would seem that the Tour would want to set up the back nine so that someone might make a run, but this did not seem to be the case.

How would you suggest that they do this ?

For one, I did not think the 12th hole was a realistic birdie opportunity, with Sunday's pin placement.  Both Weir and Oberholser hit good shots that hit no further back than pin high, and their balls bounded into the back rough.  There were 0 birdies on the day there, and 15 players actually held the green.  Now, I believe that if the only way to keep a ball on the green is to get a lucky bounce out of a 10 foot strip of rough beyond a bunker on a 200 yard par three with a green that appears less than 20 yards deep, I would say there is a bit of a problem.  I love a really difficult golf hole as much as anyone, but any time the player must either play a long way away from a pin on a par-3 or play for a semi-makeable chip shot from over the back, it's not a good golf hole.  It is my opinion that one's chances of success on a given hole are left to chance, then the hole loses some value.

[Scott Cannon]

As wonderful as it is, it just wasn't that interesting to watch today.  It might have been the fault of Weir's horrible play, but no one even came close to challenging Oberholser toward the end.  

It would seem that the Tour would want to set up the back nine so that someone might make a run, but this did not seem to be the case.

How would you suggest that they do this ?

For one, I did not think the 12th hole was a realistic birdie opportunity, with Sunday's pin placement.  Both Weir and Oberholser hit good shots that hit no further back than pin high, and their balls bounded into the back rough.  There were 0 birdies on the day there, and 15 players actually held the green.  Now, I believe that if the only way to keep a ball on the green is to get a lucky bounce out of a 10 foot strip of rough beyond a bunker on a 200 yard par three with a green that appears less than 20 yards deep, I would say there is a bit of a problem.  I love a really difficult golf hole as much as anyone, but any time the player must either play a long way away from a pin on a par-3 or play for a semi-makeable chip shot from over the back, it's not a good golf hole.  It is my opinion that one's chances of success on a given hole are left to chance, then the hole loses some value.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Who said a 200 YARD par 3 is suppose to be a birdie hole anyway? The nature of that hole is, make 3 and go to 13 where a birdie IS a realistic thought. Then go to 14 where 3 good shots will give you a shot at birdie. Hit you a shot up the left side of 15 and hit a short iron into that hole. To say 12 should give those guys a chance at birdie is crazy

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Gavrich,

That's ONE hole.

What about the other eight ( ?

How would you alter or set them up ?

[Mike Hendren]

I've never considered the 12th to be a poor hole.  The Sunday pin was fantastic - a sucker pin.  Plenty of room to draw the ball in there without the precise distance requirement if one is willing to accept a two putt par from 40 feet right of the hole location.  Tour players, however, can't help themselves and with their abilities couldn't resist having a go right at it, supremely confident they could get up and down from the back fringe if necessary.  9 out of 10 professionals could have hit that green if that was their goal.  

BTW, my only time there I hit a 4-iron that finished approximately 10 feet past Sunday's hole location.  Regretably, it was a double-cross and the pin was front right.

Mike  

IMHO, there are NO bad holes at Pebble Beach - merely a couple of plain ones.  However, those heinous bunkers on 15 just about ruin the entire golf course.  

[Tim Gavrich]

As wonderful as it is, it just wasn't that interesting to watch today.  It might have been the fault of Weir's horrible play, but no one even came close to challenging Oberholser toward the end.  

It would seem that the Tour would want to set up the back nine so that someone might make a run, but this did not seem to be the case.

How would you suggest that they do this ?

For one, I did not think the 12th hole was a realistic birdie opportunity, with Sunday's pin placement.  Both Weir and Oberholser hit good shots that hit no further back than pin high, and their balls bounded into the back rough.  There were 0 birdies on the day there, and 15 players actually held the green.  Now, I believe that if the only way to keep a ball on the green is to get a lucky bounce out of a 10 foot strip of rough beyond a bunker on a 200 yard par three with a green that appears less than 20 yards deep, I would say there is a bit of a problem.  I love a really difficult golf hole as much as anyone, but any time the player must either play a long way away from a pin on a par-3 or play for a semi-makeable chip shot from over the back, it's not a good golf hole.  It is my opinion that one's chances of success on a given hole are left to chance, then the hole loses some value.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Who said a 200 YARD par 3 is suppose to be a birdie hole anyway? The nature of that hole is, make 3 and go to 13 where a birdie IS a realistic thought. Then go to 14 where 3 good shots will give you a shot at birdie. Hit you a shot up the left side of 15 and hit a short iron into that hole. To say 12 should give those guys a chance at birdie is crazy

It doesn't seem too crazy to me.  It's not a question of easy/hard, but of fair/unfair.  I do no mean whatsoever that it should be a birdie hole, but I think that it should at least be within a reasonable realm of possibility to hit a shot into birdie territory on any hole.  The only way, aside from hitting a Tiger-height 6-iron, which virtually no player has, any shot directed near the pin will either bury in long rough short of the green, or bound over.  I saw no in-between aside from the dumb-luck of Sabbatini's shot, which landed in the rough and got a great bounce onto the green.  In my opinion, this is where one must draw the line between a 'difficult' golf hole and a 'hokey' golf hole.

Mr. Mucci--  I did not disagree with all pin placements.  the ones that really bothered me a lot were 12 and 14.  I've already discussed 12, but on 14, the pin position eliminated the risk-reward of having a go in 2.  Even after laying up, the shot is pretty ominous.  Once again, the landing area seemed too small.  I just couldn't help but feel that Weir was helpless in trying to come back a little, especially on key holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Gavrich,

I don't think the hole location on # 14 prevented anybody from going for the green in two.

Why do you feel that way ?

I don't think hole location had anything to do with Weir's play.

[Scott Cannon]

[quote author=Tim Gavrich link=board=1;threadid=21963;For one, I did not think the 12th hole was a realistic birdie opportunity, with Sunday's pin placement.... There were 0 birdies on the day there, and 15 players actually held the green.   it's not a good golf hole.  

I do no mean whatsoever that it should be a birdie hole, ...-  I did not disagree with all pin placements.  the ones that really bothered me a lot were 12 and 14...  Even after laying up, the shot is pretty ominous.  Once again, the landing area seemed too small.

Again, I must comment. I know we all have our own opinions and Tim I respect yours, but I wouldn't matter where they put that pin on 14. Its a very, very small surface. I dont know where the PGA could of put the pin to encourage anyone to go for it in 2. It is a brutal 3rd shot with a 60 deg wedge.

[Bob_Huntley]

I played the Dunes today at MPCC. We teed off at 1.00pm in short sleeved shirts in almost 70 degree weather. By the back nine heavy sweaters were in use and the wind gusts were well over 25mph. Had this happened at Pebble on Sunday last, no one would have been even close to par.

Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()