I stood on the 17th tee for several hours during the final round of the 1992 Open. As you might recall the wind was howling into the players that day and they were playing from the 212 yard tee as I remember. Player after player pulled 3 wood out of the bag and when they did so the fans in the grandstands behind the tee all shouted "Driver"! Player after player came up short, apparently their egos would not allow them to hit a driver on a par 3 hole. The only player who listened to the crowd was Ian Baker Finch, who replaced his 3 wood and hit his driver onto the green.

In actual fact hasn't this green shrunk to ridiculous proportions over the years? Looking at pictures from before the Egan makeover this green was huge compared to today's size. Would anybody consider reclaiming lost greenspace a viable alternative here?

Pete, A thought that sophisticated would never occur to management. Ran wrote about it in his "blunders" piece.

Phil, Thanks! I really am sick of hearing all these watered down crappy opinions! Perhaps I should just stop listening.

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.

Phil,

Pardon me if this is a repeat of other comments, I will read the rest and edit if needed, but how would one determine "the result that you deserve from a shot"?

Thanks,

Jim

TD - thanks.  Of course this is going to mean I think it proves my point and George thinks it proves his, but we shall leave that out of this very worthwhile thread... Just do know it's going to be used as evidence if and when we discuss that again... because George and I both know it will never be settled.

Now back to 17 Pebble and Jack's thoughts...

TH

and when did Jack become so concerned with "fairness" and "a good shot should produce a good result"?  here's a guy who used to love playing in the British Open, who said St. Andrews is hsi favorite place to play golf...yet at TOC and other Open courses one certainly doesn't always get the "proper" result?

That the back tee is very seldom used (is it still maintained?) is proof in the puddin' that Nicklaus is right on.  Most of you also seem to forget that he hit the highest and softest landing long irons in the planet.  If he, the best in the world ever, can't hit his money shot to that section of the green, that part is superfluous at best.  Cutting a cup back there where not even God can access it does not serve to identify the best in the game, but only to embarass them.  It did add to Jack's fame everywhere but here, where some seem to look at him as being foolish in terms of game management, lucky, and 'screwy' for making such a comment.

1.  Can't believe I spent so many minutes trying to find some modicum of wisdom or even enjoyment in the "Is Merion a 'Redan'" thread" while this was around....
2.  Jeff Mingay is right that this thread is closer to the good ole days of GCA than anything I have seen in recent memory (of course, in my case and at my age, "recent" is measured in nanoseconds.......).
3.  The 17th at Pebble is a GREAT (I'd do colors, if I were as technically adept as Mucci....) golf hole.
4.  Nicklaus WAS lucky to hit the stick.  It was, for him, a "bad" shot that got rewarded, through luck.
5.  Downwind, the play to the front bunker is the shot de la finesse.  Best way to get not only a birdie, but even a par, unless you are Moe Norman (or Nicklaus on that day).
6.  Think about the 10th at Dornoch (if you know it, or even if you do not).  148 yards.  Slightly downhill.  Two tier "Mackenzie" green.  A simple 9 iron in most conditions.  Very tough into a wind with a 5-iron in your hand, but pretty impossible when played downwind and with the normal VERY fast and firm mid-summer conditions. Only Tiger on a completely Koan-freindly day could hold the green.  Damn it, those front bunkers look womb-like on days like that......
7.  As other have wisely said, it was the same hole for everybody on that day....
8.  So, Jack was wrong.  His result may have been "screwy" but his strategy was even "screwier."  If he needed a 3 (or even a 2) he should have hit short, expecting to end up in the fronting bunker.  Of course Jack's short game has never been his forte.  Maybe that was on his mind......
9.  The Doak/Nicklaus/Lipe sub thread here had lots of hidden meaning, one of which seems to confirm my oftn denigrated thesis that above average golfers (e.g. me, Doak) have a relative advantage over great golfers (e.g. Nicklaus, Lipe) on more highly contoured greens.
10. If Bob Crosby really thinks that the right play at 17 PB is to do a slinging hook through the birth canal between the two plateaux, he is either:
    a.  overdosed on the (ridiculously unrealistic) conventiional "wisdom" of this site
    b. a prime candidate for relegation to "Is the 3rd at Merion a 'Redan'" thread"

Love it!
 

Rich -

I am pleased to be corrected about the tightness of the  straits on the 17th. Apparently I played it far too many years ago.

I noted, and as you noted above, that the best way to play the hole at times is to find the front bunker.

I do not take that to be a sign of great architecture. To the contrary, I take that to be a reason to ask questions.

If a pin placed anywhere within a quadrant of a large green means that the preferred shot is into a hazard when being played under typical wind conditions, "great hole" does not leap to mind. Even if Dornoch has a hole that plays that way too.

Bob

Bob

Apology accepted.  You need to get out more.

Geoff

You need to get out more, too.

Cheers

Rich

Geoff

You need to get out more, too.

Cheers

Rich

Rich - very true indeed.  If only I didn't have to work for food and shelter  

The implication is that Mr. Nicklaus knows exactly where and what his actions will yield. Once the ball leaves the clubface, he has no control over it or the natural world he's played towards.

Awesome comment.


To all those who say good shots get rewarded and bad ones get penalised, I say this.

We entrust the design and playability of the golf course to deliver reasonable outcomes, but not as often as too many people on here would like. So long as they are noted when achieved, and not angrily scorned at when they don't deliver, then fine by me. The difference between a fair principle and ultimate entitlement in fair results are worlds apart, and it is difficult to wander partially down that road without ending up romping all the way. The result of such a journey is a golf course that is boring and will never amount to anything.

NONE of the great courses on the planet would exist today if "entitlement" or fair outcomes of shots were as enshrined then as they are in some of the thinking in this and other threads on this topic on here.

Maybe this train of thought is from left field a bit, but I have a question...is it a reasonable trade-off for the difficulty (screwy or unfairness) of the 17th hole on that day in 1971(?) to have #14 or #6 (whichever one had the helping wind) play downwind and therefore easier?

I know there are times when #14 might not be easier downwind but, to isolate this question to how Nicklaus was affected, being as long as anyone of the time it might just have become reachable.

This ties into a larger dynamic with wind conditions, so it really does affect all players in some way. If not #14, was there a hole made substantially easier by this specific wind direction and condition? #2? I have only played the course twice and do not presently benefit from an exact image of the layout of the holes. Nor do I recal the exact wind direction although into from the right is my first instinct.

Thoughts?

Is it reasonable to expect a hurting wind on one hole to compensate the players on another hole? Or vice versa? After all, in theory we start and finish in the same spot so something should balance out.

But, the larger point is that good golfers don't ever want to give back their good bounces, they only think it would be fair to excise the bad ones.

Tom,

I can't really agree with that. In my observation, the best golfers are able to dismiss the effect of luck (both good and bad) on their game. I've heard many top golfers dismiss a shot as being lucky, or just kind of whistle past a bad break.

Of course, there are the complainers out there. But I don't consider these folks to be good golfers.