[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

I've played a number of your courses. I know Sebonack has your fingerprints all over it. Thus, I presume there are plenty of opportunities for "screwy results" out there.

Maybe not? (Doubt it.)  

[Lloyd_Cole]

[quote author=Garland Bayley No Lloyd, I am not Pat Mucci. Pat Mucci would have used bold green, or have progressed eventually to bold red if provoked. I put a smiley face to indicate that I know everyone is entitled to their opinion and that I was just teasing.

Now did you get that!

 

Garland

Apologies

I have yet to get used to these smiley face things. I must learn!

[Lloyd_Cole]

Nicklaus had a three-stroke lead when he hit the shot.  The RBS commercial where he says "he had to hit the shot" is a bit of an overstatement.  He could have finished bogie/bogie and still won.  As it is he three-putted 18 and still won by 3.

I think there are two possible reasons he hit the pin then - 1) a mistake, eg, he played for a fade and hit it straight, or b) he felt that 3 shots was enough of a cushion  and he was playing well enough, so, what the hell??
My money is on #1.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  

When we played in the grand opening round at Sebonack, I hit it in a couple of places (once on the green and once just off) where it was just impossible to get anywhere inside ten feet with the next shot.  And I could tell that it bothered Jack more than it bothered me, even though he hadn't got the screwy result.  We "discussed" other such possibilities during the course of the design, and both got our way some of the time.

Of course, Jack has a different perspective.  It's not often that he just goes out and plays golf for fun ... honestly, I am not sure if he ever has.

[David Stamm]

Nicklaus had a three-stroke lead when he hit the shot.  The RBS commercial where he says "he had to hit the shot" is a bit of an overstatement.  He could have finished bogie/bogie and still won.  As it is he three-putted 18 and still won by 3.

I think there are two possible reasons he hit the pin then - 1) a mistake, eg, he played for a fade and hit it straight, or b) he felt that 3 shots was enough of a cushion  and he was playing well enough, so, what the hell??
My money is on #1.

Lloyd, Nicklaus has said in the past that he he was playing so well at that time that he was able to make an adjustment DURING his swing if he felt that it wasn't quite "right". He says that that was the case on that swing. Who knows. But if so, then you may be right, it was a mistake. If everyone goes to the USGA website, they can see a video of the shot and you can judge for yourself of going for the pin at that time was the "right" thing to do. Note: listen to Nelson's commentary in reagrds to the conditions and the pin placement.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

That's funny.

I actually talked with Jack's caddie from that opening round day at Sebonack a couple weeks ago, and heard a couple other good ones from that day, too... and, there's a rumour going around that your ground attack was more impressive than Jack's usual aerial assault on the golf course!

P.S. Zokol told me recently that he rarely, if ever, plays golf for fun either. At least he's got one thing in common with Jack!

I know you're looking in, Dick  

[Tom_Doak]

Butch Harmon in his new book makes the same claim about Tiger ... that when he started working with him, he offered that it looked like Tiger could feel the position of his clubface in the downswing and adjust it if he wanted, and Tiger confirmed that feeling.

Hard to know whether those guys can actually think like that, or whether they are just so sure of themselves that they believe they can.  Either way it's going to work better for them than for anyone else.

[Phil Benedict]

Jeff:  

When we played in the grand opening round at Sebonack, I hit it in a couple of places (once on the green and once just off) where it was just impossible to get anywhere inside ten feet with the next shot.  And I could tell that it bothered Jack more than it bothered me, even though he hadn't got the screwy result.  We "discussed" other such possibilities during the course of the design, and both got our way some of the time.

Of course, Jack has a different perspective.  It's not often that he just goes out and plays golf for fun ... honestly, I am not sure if he ever has.

Tom,

Does your definition of fun include not being able to get a putt within 10-feet of the hole?

On Jack's approach to golf I have always felt that he wouldn't be interested in the game if he wasn't a champion.  I don't think he loves the game in the same way that Arnie does, for example, or even most of the guys who participate in this site.  He loved competing and winning tournament golf.  His career wouldn't have lasted 10 years if he was just a mid-level tour pro.  

[Garland Bayley]

Tom,

Does your definition of fun include not being able to get a putt within 10-feet of the hole?

...

Even Jack builds them that way. I think it is the 9th at Old Works where I was on the front and the hole was cut below the high steep drop to the back. There was no way my 1st putt was going to stop within 10 feet of the hole unless I hit the center of the cup.

[BCrosby]

Re: the best way to play the 17th.

During the 2000 Open, they put the pin in the "Nicklaus" position the last day. I was struck by the number of players who seemed to play intentionally into the front bunker and then played a rountine sand shot for a par.

As I recall, that is how Tiger played the hole. Maybe that's the ticket.

But if that's indeed the ticket, it makes me wonder about the quality of the hole.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

I'm not going to try and psychoanalyze Jack Nicklaus any more than I have already had to.

As for my round at Sebonack, yes, that was fun golf.  On the putt in question that I couldn't get inside ten feet, on the par-5 13th, I pulled my approach shot to the wrong half of the green while shying away from a bunker that would have been an easier up and down.  I looked at three different ways to try and get the putt close from the upper tier to the lower, around either side of the mound which intervened or over the top, but I was in exactly the wrong place and there was nothing I could do.  Jack came over and tried it, too, and he got as close as you could get.  (It was the only time during the round that he tried out a shot from my position, because it was important to him to understand the shot values and I was making a mess of it.)

Now here's my point, a point made to me by Bill Coore at Kapalua fifteen years ago when he was rebuilding the second green to make it more fair:  

a)  On my approach shot I missed my target 40 feet wide, even though it was on the green.  
b)  If there had been a pond in that spot, no one would have thought it was unfair that I'd wound up in the pond.
c)  It was my fault that I didn't respect the contours of the green as much as I would have respected a pond.
d)  Where is it written that you should always be able to get down in two shots from 40 feet away?  People have invented that level of fairness for themselves because they think they are "on the green" and therefore entitled to two-putt.
e)  One of the most interesting shots I had all day was that putt.  No chance to make it ... the question was what was the best chance to get down in two from there, and there were no guarantees.

To a lot of people that is unfair, but to me it's fun.  If we'd done our job better, I guess we should have given you a way to get within six feet of the hole, but I was in THE worst spot; if my ball had been five feet to either side I might have been able to get much closer.  Which, I suppose, might be another person's definition of a screwy result.  

[Tom_Doak]

PS to Bob:  Just saw your post.  Do you think they were playing to INTENTIONALLY hit into the bunker, or just making sure they didn't take enough club to get in the rough over the back, and accepting if they fell short into the bunker in the process?

[Dan Kelly]

If we'd done our job better, I guess we should have given you a way to get within six feet of the hole...

I don't see why.

I think you had it right, earlier: "Where is it written that you should always be able to get down in two shots from 40 feet away?"

[Tom Huckaby]

TD - that is gold - re Jack (hell of an insight there, I've been a fan all my life and never thought of him that way) but more importantly that a) to e).  That should be mandatory reading for anyone interested in what makes courses fun, and great.

One caveat/question:  wouldn't you agree that when a pin is placed in a position so severe that no where on the green or near it will allow a ball to get anywhere near the hole just do to gravity, that is not fun, and also just plain absurd?

I'm thinking of an example that must be near and dear to your heart - #11 Pasa.  As it was before, no pin on the back half worked with modern green speeds.  Thus it was absurd.

One other thing... can't resist although George Pazin is gonna kill me... on that putt, how close did Jack get it?  I have to know... you may well prove one way or the other a LONG-running discussion we've had re the effect of highly contoured greens.  If Jack didn't get inside 6-7 feet, it's gonna be a banner day for me.... if he did, please don't answer.

 

[Phil Benedict]

Tom,

I tend to think golf should be fair in that good shots ought to be rewarded.  What you describe is a marginal shot being penalized.  You got what you deserved.  But you shouldn't enjoy it, should you?

Being in the wrong spot on the green is no different from short-siding yourself, is it?

[George Pazin]

Phil:

I'm not going to try and psychoanalyze Jack Nicklaus any more than I have already had to.

As for my round at Sebonack, yes, that was fun golf.  On the putt in question that I couldn't get inside ten feet, on the par-5 13th, I pulled my approach shot to the wrong half of the green while shying away from a bunker that would have been an easier up and down.  I looked at three different ways to try and get the putt close from the upper tier to the lower, around either side of the mound which intervened or over the top, but I was in exactly the wrong place and there was nothing I could do.  Jack came over and tried it, too, and he got as close as you could get.  (It was the only time during the round that he tried out a shot from my position, because it was important to him to understand the shot values and I was making a mess of it.)

Now here's my point, a point made to me by Bill Coore at Kapalua fifteen years ago when he was rebuilding the second green to make it more fair:  

a)  On my approach shot I missed my target 40 feet wide, even though it was on the green.  
b)  If there had been a pond in that spot, no one would have thought it was unfair that I'd wound up in the pond.
c)  It was my fault that I didn't respect the contours of the green as much as I would have respected a pond.
d)  Where is it written that you should always be able to get down in two shots from 40 feet away?  People have invented that level of fairness for themselves because they think they are "on the green" and therefore entitled to two-putt.
e)  One of the most interesting shots I had all day was that putt.  No chance to make it ... the question was what was the best chance to get down in two from there, and there were no guarantees.

To a lot of people that is unfair, but to me it's fun.  If we'd done our job better, I guess we should have given you a way to get within six feet of the hole, but I was in THE worst spot; if my ball had been five feet to either side I might have been able to get much closer.  Which, I suppose, might be another person's definition of a screwy result.  

Man, I think I'm gonna save this post.

 

P.S. Huck, I can't even believe you're saying that - you've said all along it's the number of strokes, not the distance, that matters. Now you're changing your argument?

[Tom Huckaby]

George - I am not changing my argument one iota - just assuming Jack didn't putt out, just tried the first putt.   if he gets it to 6-7 feet at best, that means it's 50/50 he makes the next one...

Of course I'd be talking to you a lot if they both three-jacked from there.  If they didn't, it will remain one isolated example.

 

[BCrosby]

Tom -

My thought at the time was that they were playing intentionally into that bunker. I could be wrong of course, but my sense was that with that pin and the condition of the green, they preferred the relatively routine bunker shot to whatever awaited them behind the green. Because holding the green didn't seem to be a realistic option.

I would like to hear what Tiger, Ernie or others say about it. I don't think they were ever asked.

Bob

 

[Phil Benedict]

Tom -

My thought at the time was that they were playing intentionally into that bunker. I could be wrong of course, but my sense was that with that pin and the condition of the green, they preferred the relatively routine bunker shot to whatever awaited them behind the green. Because holding the green didn't seem to be a realistic option.

I would like to hear what Tiger, Ernie or others say about it. I don't think they were ever asked.

Bob

 

So the right strategy was hitting into a "hazard."  Not much of a hazard I guess.  What a great set up!

[Jeff_Mingay]

Phil:

I'm not going to try and psychoanalyze Jack Nicklaus any more than I have already had to.

As for my round at Sebonack, yes, that was fun golf.  On the putt in question that I couldn't get inside ten feet, on the par-5 13th, I pulled my approach shot to the wrong half of the green while shying away from a bunker that would have been an easier up and down.  I looked at three different ways to try and get the putt close from the upper tier to the lower, around either side of the mound which intervened or over the top, but I was in exactly the wrong place and there was nothing I could do.  Jack came over and tried it, too, and he got as close as you could get.  (It was the only time during the round that he tried out a shot from my position, because it was important to him to understand the shot values and I was making a mess of it.)

Now here's my point, a point made to me by Bill Coore at Kapalua fifteen years ago when he was rebuilding the second green to make it more fair:  

a)  On my approach shot I missed my target 40 feet wide, even though it was on the green.  
b)  If there had been a pond in that spot, no one would have thought it was unfair that I'd wound up in the pond.
c)  It was my fault that I didn't respect the contours of the green as much as I would have respected a pond.
d)  Where is it written that you should always be able to get down in two shots from 40 feet away?  People have invented that level of fairness for themselves because they think they are "on the green" and therefore entitled to two-putt.
e)  One of the most interesting shots I had all day was that putt.  No chance to make it ... the question was what was the best chance to get down in two from there, and there were no guarantees.

To a lot of people that is unfair, but to me it's fun.  If we'd done our job better, I guess we should have given you a way to get within six feet of the hole, but I was in THE worst spot; if my ball had been five feet to either side I might have been able to get much closer.  Which, I suppose, might be another person's definition of a screwy result.  

The post above reminds me of the "old GolfClubAltas.com", in the early days, when there was much more meaningful, learned discussion amongst this group.

[George Pazin]

If they didn't, it will remain one isolated example.

Regardless, it remains but one isolated example with two putters, one of whom is arguably the greatest ever, and the other, who has a strong reputation as an excellent putter.

Think about this: Jack might 50/50 to 3 putt from 6-7 feet (I'd guess more like 65/35 he makes the 6 or 7 footer), but a lesser golfer is all but guaranteed a 3 putt, with an excellent chance for 4 (if Tom could only get it to 10 feet, there's a very good chance a poor putter would be left with enough distance to 3 putt from wherever his first putt ends up).

Well, enough of the thread jack. Unless you come up with something I feel the need to rebutt, I'm bowing out.

Jeff M -

I see what you're saying, which is why we need you to post more often.

[Phil Benedict]

One caveat/question:  wouldn't you agree that when a pin is placed in a position so severe that no where on the green or near it will allow a ball to get anywhere near the hole just do to gravity, that is not fun, and also just plain absurd?

May the Lord be with you.

[cary lichtenstein]

I came across this comment by Nicklaus on the Golf Channel's web site.  He was responding specifically to a question about the 17th at Pebble Beach.

"Seventeen at Pebble Beach to me was a hole where you were not necessarily rewarded for what you did. You had to get a little bit lucky. My ball had to hit the pin. It could have gone through the green. That was a wonderful golf shot but I could’ve been penalized by it. And to me, I like a hole where you get actually what you’ve done and not where you can end up with a screwy result. I don’t like screwy results."

There was a thread recently about fairness.  "Screwy" is really a synonym for "unfair" in the context this statement.  The best golfers place a very high value on fairness - getting the result that you deserve from a shot.  Seems like a reasonable principle to me.

There are plenty of screwy results at The Ritz and The Bear Club

[Adam Clayman]

Walt C. Why aren't bad shots penalty enough? Kicking a man when he's down, is the bane of penal archtecture.

Bob, Coming up short, repeatedly, illustrates to me they mis-calculated natures influence.

Tom D. There's a very good reason no one draws one through the pinch point. It's not doable. The cant of the front section's side slope pushes everything farther right off the green.



My favorite aspect of #17 is the challenge of factoring-in nature (Mother's and yours). The teeing ground is protected from almost all sides. Factoring-in the elements, up by the green, and their influence, is tricky. This challenge of awareness, is at the core of the sport, and why I like the hole so much.

The 17th hole is not only a good hole. It is a great hole!


The first pace and a half, over the bunker, on the back section, is sloped away from the golfer. The entire back portion of that section is sloped towards the golfer. Hitting a high shot past the first third of the green will almost guarantee the ball either stoping or spining. Especially for a pro.
Hitting just over the bunker on the downslope will propel one's ball to an unpredictable location. Sometimes very long onto the 18th tee. Sometimes just off the back. It depends on how high on the slope it first hit, humidity, length of grass and spin.

On my first go, from the 185 tees, I hit  a soft fade 3 wood fifteen feet past the hole. Thought I was short and in the bunker but was thrilled to findout I was putting.

That inability to see where one's ball comes to fruition, is another great aspect of the hole. Pros and psuedo-golfers who require the immediacy of knowing and seeing everything, miss-out on all that glorious anticipation. Same is true on #8 at Spanish Bay when those glorious reeds are tall obscuring where the actual putting surface starts and stops.


.

[Tom Huckaby]

George - bowing out too - just assume I disagree, and you already know why.  But I am still interested in Tom's report re Jack's putt.  

Phil - and also with you.

Fine Catholic Boy Tom H.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()