[John Morrissett]

I was quite surprised at how people are saying it is a toss-up between the finishing holes at Pebble Beach and Pacific Dunes (or that Pac Dunes wins the hole).

After four rounds at Pac Dunes, I'm still not sure that I "get" the appeal of the 18th.  Visually, it's a cool hole, with the bunker on the left from the tee and the neat bunkering by the green, and the green itself is very good, esp. the way it drops/slopes off at the back-right.  However, after the tee shot, the hole feels awfully restricting (unlike the rest of the course).    

Given the left to right angle of the green, you would like to be able to play your second shot down the left side to leave yourself an unobstructed pitch up the spine of the green.  However, the severe left to right pitch of the left rough and left side of the fairway effectively rule out that tactic.  Furthermore, it seemed that a great many players will wind up playing their approach from the same spot (a bowl in the fairway).

Other than trying to blast your second shot as far as possible, what is the strategy in trying to place your second?

Please help me understand the hole.  Thanks.

[THuckaby2]

No help here, John.  Like I say, I love 18 at PD - it's a great hole - but I'm with you re the 2nd - it's bash away.  The green site is wonderful and the tee shot is very fun...

But comparing it to 18 Pebble?  Please.  Those who denigrate this hole have no sense of joy.  Sure, it can be 3wood, 4iron, 9iron as so many pros play it... and thus it isn't the TOUGHEST hole on earth... but standing on that tee, preparing to hit that drive, biting off as much of the Pacific as you dare... then facing the Pacific again, and so much history, as well as hundreds of envious tourists and you hit the 2nd... then getting on that green with the ocean on one side and the incredible lodge on the other...

Well, there's none of that in Bandon.

I prepare to be lambasted by the more knowledgeable here... "golf experience" just cannot be discounted on a hole like 18 Pebble.

TH

[John Bernhardt]

I do not think these two are comparable in that manner. #18 at PB is the game.It is one of the most significant spots in golf period. every golfer dreams of that walk and to be on that spot. It is a great finishing hole and generally is considered the best finishing hole in chanpionship golf or golf period.( please get spell check soon) #18 at PD is a great finishing hole . I love it, but it lacks the drama and history at this point in time to become a major golfing moment for all who love the game. I have yet to play it well enought to know whether it is hittable in 2. I have played it 3 times but as yet have not really looked at all the angles and site lines  into the green to appreciate all the stratigic options available. It is a wonderful finishing hole that i cannot wait to play again and again though and is a strong hole worthy of the coourse it is a part of as a finishing hole.

[John Bernhardt]

or i could have saved space and said :what Tom said" well said too tom

[Dan Kelly]

I haven't played Pacific Dunes, so can't comment there. On 18 at Pebble Beach:

Call me a heretic, but -- no matter how beautiful the setting (very beautiful) and no matter how much history lives there (quite a bit, though not so much as at 17, I'd guess) and no matter how envious the tourists are -- I haven't been a huge fan of No. 18.

The way almost all of the pros have played it almost all of these years: careful tee shot down the middle, careful long-iron layup down the middle, pitch, hope for birdie putt.

I want it to be a pure risk-reward hole, rather than a three-shot par-5.

Wouldn't it be a far, far better hole if it were a short par-5 or a long par-4 . . . say, 50 yards shorter -- or however much shorter it would need to be to tempt all of the best players to hit daring drives down the left and then daring long-iron or fairway-wood seconds over the sea wall to the green?

[THuckaby2]

Dan:  woulda, coulda shoulda.  Sure, it might be a better hole if it were a bit shorter (giving more of a risk/reward aspect) but just be patient, the souped up ball is taking care of this.  The pros already have been reaching it with irons for a few years.

I say it's a GREAT hole just as it is.  I've heard these arguments many times before, too.  Yes, it can be played quite conservatively... but one just plain can't deny the setting, history, etc.

Let me put it this way:  is 16 Cypress a bad hole because it's too long for many to make the carry?  Is the road hole at St. Andrews a bad hole because it's so tough to make a 4 and the tee shot is blind?

This comes down to the age old "experience v. architecture" argument and it's clear where I stand.

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Tom --

I appreciate your point. BUT!

I don't think this is a case of experience VERSUS architecture. Unlike Cypress 16 (which, unlike you, I haven't had the extreme pleasure to play -- even once, much less twice!) or The Road Hole (which I have played once, in a driving rain; remind me to tell you that story sometime) -- both of which could possibly be improved architecturally, but only at a fearsome experiential price -- the experience of PB 18 would be vastly heightened, I think, if the architecture were better; if the hole were pure risk/reward (the way 13 at Augusta used to be, until the big boys got too long for it). All you have to do is make it shorter! (I'm not suggesting that you fill in the Pacific, or something!)

As you say, the longer balls are starting to re-create the hole in the way I wish it had been created. Silver lining in a dark cloud?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan and Tom,

For clarification,

Are we looking at these holes from the touring pro perspective, or the average to better golfer perspective ?

How many tour pros have we seen play PD ?

[THuckaby2]

Dan - that's one tiny silver lining in a huge dark cloud!

But I understand, in any case.  I just think PB 18 is so cool as it is, it's silly to wish for changes.  That little promontory where the tee sits - what are you gonna do, bulldoze that and create another 50 yards up?  Of course, I might like that if it meant moving 17 green further right and backing it up to the ocean and making it longer... but that screws up one of the world's unique greens and you'd be hitting over the fence at the edge of the Lodge property...

See where I'm going here?  We can dream of changes on basically any hole, or go ahead and get out the bulldozer (call that the Augusta Complex).  The reality is what it is, and in this case, it's been there a LONG time and served quite successfully.

Thus I like 18 Pebble just how it is, with the tee right next to 17 green, creating a damn fun tee shot if you choose to be daring.

For the pros, heck yeah it's an easy 5.  For this hack 5 handicapper, I've never felt ANY score was easy to achieve...

Make sense?

One more thought:  back in line with the initial topic, I know you haven't played there (YET!), but 18 at PD can be played quite conservatively also, and good God you'd have to hit two monstrous shots to reach it in two... there sure isn't any superior strategy there...

I find no comparison between the two holes, obviously.  But I did just feel guilty straying from John's topic!

Cheers.

TH

[kilfara]

For me, no. 18 at PB has proved the axiom that great holes very rarely have their strategy defined by individual trees. When the greenside tree at Pebble was lost recently, that hole really lost a lot of its appeal to me - on both architectural and historical grounds. (It looks naked out there now.)

No. 18 at PD is an interesting story. I think it's a hole with a marvelous look and feel to it - in concept it reminds me a bit of no. 16 at Shinnecock - and I think it will play superbly for longer hitters and natural drawers of the ball (or lefty faders, as I think Dan King has now proven!). For me, in the relatively damp conditions of last week, it played driver-driver-2-iron or driver-driver-driver, and yep, it was a bit of a slog. I think it will prove an excellent finishing hole over time, though.

As for the architecture vs. tradition debate, comparing PB vs. PD is a complete non-starter at the moment. Using that criteria in determining one's personal preference is fine, I guess, but it doesn't really do us much good from the analytical perspective which makes this discussion group shine. IMHO, of course...

Cheers,
Darren

[THuckaby2]

Pat - we crossed in cyberspace.  Hopefully I addressed that above.  For the pros, 18 PB has become quite the strategic hole...

For mortals, it's always gonna be 3 shots, each quite tough - you have to be a darn good player and quite disciplined to do it the way a pro does in his conservative way.  Speaking for myself, none of those shots are "easy."

I can't see many pros even reaching PD 18 in two, so I don't see the strategy there no matter what, especially given how the 2nd shot sets up, as John described in the first post here.

But obviously, these are indeed two very different perspectives.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Darren - wait a sec - I was down at Pebble a month ago, and they had a "replacement" tree in place next to 18 green.  Is that one gone?  Oh yeah, take out that tree and the hole is indeed changed, to the bad....

As for architecture v. experience, I just don't see how one can DENY the latter... And why should it NOT be part of the discussion here?

This reminds me of the age old question people ask about Cypress:  would it be the same if it fronted a dump?  Well, as a great Armenian once said, the fact is, it doesn't.

Pebble is what it is and has the history it has.  Why should this be denied in ANY assessment?

That I've never understood.

TH

ps - don't get me wrong, I love PD #18!  I'm with you though, it played very long...

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

Who can deny the awesome experience of the tee shot on #18 at Pebble?

But, I still say the 2nd and 3rd shots are pretty ho hum.  Just an opinion.

Pat Mucci raises a good question about whether we are talking about touring pros or the average guy.  Actually, until recent years most pros played the hole in a very conservative, somewhat boring fashion.

However, some years back (circa 1990) I did see Jack Nicklaus go at the green with a 6 iron after a massive drive (for those days).  Jack wasn't having a very good round and seemed to say "what the hell, so what if the Japanese coastline comes into to play".  He pulled off the shot and was left with about 180 yards to the green.

John:

I haven't figured out #18 at PD either.  By contrast, I "get" the 2nd and 3rd shots at Pebble and that's why I favor PD.

[THuckaby2]

Tim, for me anyway, it comes down to this:

Which hole would you rather play?

For me it isn't even close.

But I do realize that might not be the question asked here...

And forgive me, but what's to figure out on the 2nd and 3rd shots on 18 at PD?   Bash it up the left side, hope for a good bounce, play the third with whatever pitch you have left (or a 75 yard putt as I did one time), allow for the green to break right.

Not much mystery there, at least in terms of strategy.. There is mystery galore in terms of RESULT though!

As for Pebble, that 2nd and 3rd will never be ho hum for me.  I am not that skilled.  I kinda hope I never am...

Want perhaps a better question?  Compare the two 17ths.

I have a good idea where you and I will come out here...

But just to show I am a fair man, I'd say the 17th at PD is a superior design.  That is one great hole.  Tough, several ways to play, Redan features.

But I'd rather play 17 at Pebble.

See, there's this little Watson occurrence... and Lemmon... and Palmer... and there's the ocean.... and the crazy green...

Personal preference.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

Do I think the 17th at PD is a "superior design" to the same hole at Pebble?

Yes, I do.

I probably gave that hole to Pebble just to avoid piling on.

I have the right to be a wimp, but you just can't claim "personal preference".  That kind of thing could get completely out of hand!

[THuckaby2]

Tim - very good!

But my point re stating "personal preference" above was just to underscore how perspective does matter in these assessments.

My preference is to include "experience" in any assessment.

The preference of most here is to exclude such.

I can live with it.

17 is just a great example where this is highlighted.

TH

[Gary Albrecht]

In response to John's original question, based on my having played the hole in down wind conditions from the deepest lower tee and from the newer back tee above the 16th green:

1. It's not an easy driving hole if you're trying to get to a place where you can reach the green.  I don't recall if you can get home from the end of the fairway to the right of the blowout bunker, or if a drive from the back tee can even get you there.  If I recall correctly, it plays about 630 yards from the upper tee.

2. I laid up to 100-125 nearly every time, as I recall.  The pin was cut in the back right, so approach shots fed to the hole if hit out to the left (avoiding the front right bunker in the process).

3. I don't recall the fairway beyond the blowout bunker as being that tight, but I wasn't going for the green either.

4. Fundamentally, I tend to agree with you.  It's beautiful from the tee, but not equal to the rest of PD from a shotmaking standpoint from the second shot to the green IMHO.

[Gary Albrecht]

Oops, the 17th green.  

[peter_p]

Both holes are strategic, but in different ways. Watching tee shots landing at PD you see 'random' bounces, so placement is important to add length. At PB you get normal roll unless rocks or water beckon. At PB the second shot is a layup to an ideal distance for a wedge to the green, and played from a flat lie with wind conditions known. At PD the second shot is often blind, uphill, probably from an uneven lie and you are sheltered from the elements, and should be drawn to counter the fairway left to right tilt. It's unlikely to end up near the desired position. I'm more concerned with my fourth shot since the third shot (3W, driver) both came up short. I'd bet the stroke average would be much higher at PD. My vote would always be for PD, but my conversations would be about Pebble's 18th because that is a historic hole to which everyone can relate.

[Chris_Hervochon]

Evem though I have never even been remotely close to playing either finishing hole, I don't quite understand what it is you guys are discussing.  It has always been my belief that history, aesthetics blah blah blah can certainly add to the enjoyment of a hole, however, that does not necessarily make it a better hole than say 18 at PD.  Strategy and architecture are what they are.  You cannot fairly compare 2 holes that are that different.  One is brand new, one is steeped in golf history.  But does history make a better hole?  No.  It always boils down to what is the better design and history has nothing to do with design.

[kilfara]

Chris,

I've never seen you post before, but if you carry on like the above post, I'll very much look forward to seeing what you have to say!   Welcome.

Cheers,
Darren

[Tim_Weiman]

Darren:

I second your motion. Welcome to Chris!

[Ran Morrissett]

Herbert Fowler and I agree: besides the 18th at St. Andrews, Pebble has the finest closing swing hole in golf.

Pacific Dunes' last two holes are the least distinguished consectutive holes on that particular course.

The only argument against Pebble's finish is that the last two holes lack the AWESOME topography that blow all but a few courses away.

[Tim_Weiman]

Ran:

I'm still inclined to think that what you suggest about the 18th at Pebble may be more true today than say 10-15 years ago.

Unless my memory is completely gone, back in those days it played as a fairly boring hole.

Sure tourists loved it, but for the big boys the risks too far outweighed the rewards.

That was my own playing experience as well. I played PB about six times (circa 1987 thru 1993)and can honestly say that the only time I was really excited about #18 was the first time.  After that it always seemed like a fairly dull mamangement exercise.

Am I biased against Pebble?  Maybe.  But, I after my first round I never got really excited about any holes other than #4, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Who knows.  Maybe I was just truned off by $1,200 sweaters in the pro shop or I came away more impressed with breakfast at Katie's Place in Carmel.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

Maybe truely great holes account for the making of History, including their own.

It's interesting to observe the ebb and flow of fads, and forms of political correctness exerting itself through opinions.

Does the fact that a limited number of the  best players in the world, the Tour Pros, can reach a par 5 green, disqualify that hole form architectual merit ?  Does that fact diminish the architectual merit of the hole ?

How has # 18 at PB lost its acclaimed position, its greatness when very little about the hole has changed. (tree replaced)?

All of a sudden it's a mediocre hole because tour pros, under certain conditions, can reach it in two (2) ?

My vague recollection was that the tee shot was faced with five obstacles.  
1 the Pacific Ocean
2 out of bounds
3 trees in the drive zone
4 wind
5 distance

My second vague recollection was that the second shot was faced with a few obstacles
1 the Pacific Ocean
2 out of bounds
3 tree/s in the landing zone
4 wind
5 bunkers
6 distance

My third vague recollection was that the third shot could be faced with a few obstacles
1 the Pacific Ocean
2 Out of bounds,
3 bunkers
4 wind
5 tree/s
6 small green
7 need to be below the pin, closer to trouble

My vague recollections are that on each shot, the player is faced with an abundance of options regarding the play of the hole, and that wind direction and velocity can complicate and expand those options.

Just because we see the group of touring pros, who are at the top of their game, the leaders, methodically play a hole, doesn't mean that hole loses its value.  

What about all the touring pros who aren't leading the tournament, or who missed the cut, who hit it OB, or in the Ocean, or in the bunker, or behind a tree.

We tend to forget when we watch TV, that we're not just watching the touring pros, we're watching that elite group, the leaders, who are at the top of their game, playing the best golf in the world.  
Golf that's close to perfect.

Is that the new criteria for judging a golf hole ?   How the best, of the best, of the best, play the hole.  Even if it is, # 18 at PB is a great finishing hole.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()