On pgatour.com's Live@7, Bill Kratzert just said that the new No. 5 at Pebble Beach gets a "hundred percent thumbs up" over the old No. 5.

By that, I don't think he meant that 100 percent of his own thumbs are up; I think he meant that 100 percent of all thumbs would be up about the change.

If I heard him correctly (I'm "working," too!): His complaint about the old No. 5 was that it was nearly impossible to lag a putt from the back to a front pin and get it within 3 or 4 feet.

He didn't say why he likes the new No. 5.

What do you Pebbleheads think?

I remember a long discussion about this subject a couple of years ago, and JES II's opinion was the prevailing one among those who'd played Pebble a number of times prior to the new #5.

I have no way to argue with that, since I've only played the new #5, but I can say that I like the new hole very much. It's a dangerous, attention-grabbing tee shot (with a tough up and down if you bail out left), and it has vastly better scenery -- which, after all, is rather important at Pebble Beach.

As for the flow of the round, I didn't mind walking back up the hill to the 6th tee. Not a bit.

You are evil, if unintentionally so.

I believe I remember Sister Stephen Marie's teaching me that evil must be intentional!

(Missed the prior discussion. Must have been off living my so-called life.)

I've played only the old No. 5 -- and I remember liking it, and thinking it pretty darn scenic in its own way.

The new hole looks nice, too.

You want evil? Check that book Rick is advertising!

If I used my game as a basis to evaluate golf holes, I too would prefer the newer form. Luckily I don't, and appreciated the old #5 for it's ability to make me want to become a better ball striker.

As for the contention that one could not putt within three feet from green back to front, is preposterous in it's premise. On poa greens anyone who says they are too fast for the slope is either playing in the U.S. Open or delusional. I'm not familiar with Kratzert's pedigree.

Huck, I believe it was more than just me who was part of the discussion. I even think Dan King weighed in this one. Plus, asking you about flow is like asking Pat Mucci about the steel mills in Gary Indiana.

But Tom,

Now you have to walk all the way back to the 6th tee up on the hill...

Don't you find the "walk in the park" test to be the best way to determine the quality of a courses routing? For me personally, it just seemed natural to head inland for a bit after a few hundred yards along the bluffs...

Quote from: JES II on February 09, 2007, 03:25:17 PM

Don't you find the "walk in the park" test to be the best way to determine the quality of a courses routing? For me personally, it just seemed natural to head inland for a bit after a few hundred yards along the bluffs...

It did not at all seem natural to me.  If I was hiking that area sans golf course, no way would I turn inland and walk up a hill... I'd follow the cliffs... which the new hole does, perfectly... at the cost of a little jaunt back to the tee on 6, which to me still makes it a net positive.

But this is the honest disagreement I mentioned in my post to Adam.

Tom,

Couldn't help but point out to ask why you'd turn inland to walk up to the area of the sixth in your walk in the park example.

You got me and good, Sully! Well done.

Kyle - in a perfect world, I wouldn't.  I'd love it if they changed 6 to put a tee below and right of the current 5 green, making it one of the world's great risk/reward short par fours.  But the hole is what it is and it's a pretty darn cool par five as well.  The point is that I find the requirement to walk back to that tee no big deal... whereas I always did find the requirement to turn away from very cool cliffs to play an entire golf hole nowhere near such to be jarring; not to mention that you went around someone's fenced-off properly and as Sully alludes to, needed a sign and a walk or ride continuing along such ugly fence to find the 6th tee.  

Adam and others disagree completely; expect them to state such sooner or later.

You got me and good, Sully! Well done.

Kyle - in a perfect world, I wouldn't.  I'd love it if they changed 6 to put a tee below and right of the current 5 green, making it one of the world's great risk/reward short par fours.  But the hole is what it is and it's a pretty darn cool par five as well.  The point is that I find the requirement to walk back to that tee no big deal... whereas I always did find the requirement to turn away from very cool cliffs to play an entire golf hole nowhere near such to be jarring; not to mention that you went around someone's fenced-off properly and as Sully alludes to, needed a sign and a walk or ride continuing along such ugly fence to find the 6th tee.  

Adam and others disagree completely; expect them to state such sooner or later.

I think your argument MIGHT be better suited if you said, "Hey look, a hilltop, maybe I could get a bigger view of the ocean from up there, so I'll leave the cliffside and walk up to the top"

But what do I know?  

Kyle - gotcha if you mean the walk to the next tee.  Just understand it's really not that far and certainly not any walk to the top of a hill... I really believe those who complaim about it make much ado about nothing.

But I like your style... Here's what the old walk meant:

Hey look, a fenced off property filled with huge tall trees!  Let's walk up that hill so we can get behind it, leaving the ocean for awhile - this ocean is getting boring.  Then let's wind through the trees along the hideous fence so we can make our way back to a view of the ocean.  I do like adventure.

But what do I know either?

 

Kalen - I wouldn't have guessed it's even that far.  But the distance isn't what bothers the flowmongers; it's more that you have to walk backwards along the line of play.  And that does suck.

But it also doesn't make the old hole better than the new in the overall; because as I've described, the old hole had flow issues of it's own.

But I like your style...

Reminds me of a joke:

So, in a third grade class a teacher asks the question, "If I have 10 birds lined up on a fence, and I shoot one, how many are left?"

A smart aleck in the back of the class shouted out, "Zero, cause the sound of the gunshot would scare them all away."

The teacher smiled politely and said, "Well yes, but I was looking for the answer 9, but I like the way you think."

The smart aleck, being quick on his feet responds, "Okay teacher, I have a question for you: There are three women on a bench, each eating an ice cream cone. One is biting it, one is licking it, one is sucking it - which one is married?"

The teacher doesn't think for long before saying, "Well, the one sucking it."

The student responds, "No, the one with the ring on her finger, but I like the way you think."

Personally, I think the walk back to the 6th tee is worth it:



Who cares if you have to walk a little bit back uphill?  It's 'the
greatest (golf) walk on earth', right?  

Not to mention, you get to leave your bag down below.  The
problem with the new version of #5 is that the back tee is
 always closed (or at least it was when I was there).  It was
merely a 140-yard pitching wedge:

 

The old #5 wasn't bad, though, semi-blind uphill shot to yet another small green: