[Adam Clayman]

Geoff Shaq's GD video about the 17th green at Pebble Beach speculates the 17th hole will be altered before the 2019 Championship returns.

 http://www.geoffshackelford.com/


Since that hole, and green, are virtually the same as in 1972, 1982, 1992 and 2000, with all the outbursts from the cognoscenti about what a horrible difficult hole it is, after this last weekend's play, does this diminish the rollback argument?

If the I & B are out of control, why does this hole get tagged as being too difficult for todays elite players when the rollback argument is that the ball flies higher straighter and farther?

My own opinion is that if 18 yr old Ishakawa can hit it to within five feet, to that back pin, why change the hole. Perhaps I'm biased because I golf with some strong farm boys who hit their 8 irons 200 yards, but even from 225, I don't see this shot demand as too testing for the best players on the planet.

Grill away...

[Garland Bayley]

Remember that the modern ball spins less off of low lofted clubs than the balata ball. What we saw at Pebble Beach this year was the first time everyone was using a ball insufficient to their needs for the 17th. The USGA is trying to get them to go back to balls with more spin. Maybe, the set up of PB was to remind all the players of that.

[Matt_Cohn]

Adam,

The green is not the same as it was in 1972 - it was much wider then. I don't know if I can track down a picture but I'll try.

[Adam Clayman]

Matt. 1992 was pre Pro V 1. Certainly the width wasn't much bigger then, was it?

[Ed Oden]

For what its worth ... http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2010/6/15/pebble-beach-then-and-now-17-side-view.html

[Adam Clayman]

Ed. I didn't notice a date on the before. My guess is pre WWII ?

[Garland Bayley]

For what its worth ... http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2010/6/15/pebble-beach-then-and-now-17-side-view.html

The pictures on Geoff's site are worth nothing. They were taken with lenses of different focal lengths, and cannot be compared. Clearly the one of the modern green was taken with a wide angle lens which is artificially going to make every thing look more narrow than it is.

[John Moore II]

For what its worth ... http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2010/6/15/pebble-beach-then-and-now-17-side-view.html

The pictures on Geoff's site are worth nothing. They were taken with lenses of different focal lengths, and cannot be compared. Clearly the one of the modern green was taken with a wide angle lens which is artificially going to make every thing look more narrow than it is.

I don't care what kind of camera angles were used in the pictures, it can be clearly seen that the green today is narrower than it was in the earlier picture. Now, how much can't really be seen, but its certainly not the same size that it was when the first picture was taken.

And for what its worth, I don't think that green could have been held even if they were playing with balata golf balls.

[Garland Bayley]

John,

The pictures were taken with essentially the same camera angle. It has nothing to do with camera angles.

[Adam Clayman]

John, The green was held. Thursday, I saw a couple of balls very close. If one can do it, why not another.

From my own experience playing the hole at 185 yards, I've held it. And I'm not that good. These are the best in the world, optimized.

Whatever happened to being able to stop it on a sewer cap?

[Ed Oden]

More historical info from Sean Tully's files...

[Adam Clayman]

Excellent Ed. Thanx.

1929 and the hole was still 218. Most fascinating.

Interesting angle of the photo. Clearly taken from an elevated position.

The question still remains, even though the green is now much smaller, in relative terms, is it proportionally that much harder to hit the the green given the increased distance, and accuracy of the modern I & B? And if the answer is benign, does this example hurt the rollback argument?

[John Moore II]

John,

The pictures were taken with essentially the same camera angle. It has nothing to do with camera angles.

I meant the lens used on the camera/wide angle. Regardless of that, it can still be seen that the old picture has a larger green.

John, The green was held. Thursday, I saw a couple of balls very close. If one can do it, why not another.

From my own experience playing the hole at 185 yards, I've held it. And I'm not that good. These are the best in the world, optimized.

Whatever happened to being able to stop it on a sewer cap?

I promise you didn't play that course in US Open conditions. I saw balls hold the green too, balls that landed 3-5 feet short of the green in the rough and got good kicks. I will will say with certainty that no one who landed a ball on the green got the ball to stop less than 5 yards over the green.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()