News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #75 on: July 05, 2006, 01:12:21 PM »
JWL,

When we left the 6th green I commented to Bobby Ranum how neat the 7th tee area was.  He liked it a great deal.
We discussed similar seemless transitions at AppleBrook and GCGC.  I think the "low-key" aspect of the tees is a real asset.

Perhaps the 6th plays shorter because drives usually don't hit INTO the steeper portion of the upward slope in the fairway, landing on a flatter slope that allows for forward roll.

I'm anxious to return and focus on a number of areas.

I'll say it again, it's a wonderful golf course.
Challenging yet fun.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2006, 01:13:52 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #76 on: July 05, 2006, 01:21:28 PM »
JWL,
    It is very interesting to read all this background stuff that went into the formation of what looks to be a wonderful course.
    Patrick answered my question about the holes with the very small greens, but I am interested what you and Mr Nicklaus think about how those holes such as #1, 5, etc... Thanks for taking the time to add more insights.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

JWL

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #77 on: July 05, 2006, 02:56:49 PM »
Patrick
I think you are probably correct on why the 6th seems to play shorter than originally thought.

ed
Jack is quite fond of both greens 1 and 6.   Both are at the end of par 4's that can be potentially driven under the correct conditions.   Thus, the pitching game inside, say, 30 yards, can be quite demanding from the wrong angle.   While these two are two of the more "birdieable" holes on the course, they will also produce some very ugly bogies when the player finds himself in an awkward position after his drive.   Both will make the players think and rethink their strategy from the tee, depending on the playing conditions.   That is what makes short holes interesting, imho.
Jack tends to prefer smaller putting surfaces.  He likes the scale of Pebble Beach's greens for several reasons.   They demand better shotmaking, better short games, and they speed up play since players don't mark their balls, putt and mark their balls again, and so on.   Since PB's greens average 3621 sq feet, one would have to say Jack likes small greens.   In fact, he often kids me about building his green sketches too big.   He thinks I am fond of large greens, which I'm not particularly, but I don't think 5000 is necessarily large in most situtations.  LOL

I wonder if anyone can guess which green at PB is the smallest.   It is very close with another, so be careful, only one guess.

Jimmy Muratt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #78 on: July 05, 2006, 03:07:00 PM »
JWL,

Is #14 at Pebble the smallest green?  

#2 seems close as well, but I'll take a shot with #14.

Jimmy

JWL

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #79 on: July 05, 2006, 03:15:14 PM »
There are 5 greens smaller than #14, and # 2 isn't one of them.   LOL

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #80 on: July 05, 2006, 03:35:37 PM »
JWL- I would guess #4 is the smallest green at PB.  Maybe 7 or 3.

#14 has the entire lower shelf.  It's probably one of the biggest though much is not pinable.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #81 on: July 05, 2006, 03:45:20 PM »
Since Jim's asking, it would seem the definitive answer would be #5. :)

8 looks tiny from across the chasm.

17 keeps shrinking, but it does have 2 lobes.

12?
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

TEPaul

Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #82 on: July 05, 2006, 03:51:21 PM »
#7 is the smallest at PB.

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #83 on: July 05, 2006, 04:02:02 PM »
#7 would seem obvious, but I will say #13. Thanks for the feedback Jim.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #84 on: July 05, 2006, 04:11:22 PM »
The 8th.
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #85 on: July 05, 2006, 04:23:59 PM »
JWL,

I think you meant that # 1 and # 5 were drivable, not # 6.

JWL

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #86 on: July 05, 2006, 05:13:43 PM »
Patrick
Yes, 1 and 5.   Typo error, sorry.

As far as the smallest green, no one has nailed it yet, although Bogey correctly named the 8th as the second smallest, and it is only 16 sq ft larger than the smallest.

Note: the green sizes I am going from are from 1998, so if any have been altered since then, then my numbers are off, and I apologize for any incorrect information.   But, the only green I know of that has increased in size is the 18th since 1997.   Anyone that know differently, please correct me.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #87 on: July 05, 2006, 05:28:52 PM »
Jim,

To prove my first guess was a fluke, I'll go with the 11th as being 16 sf smaller.

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #88 on: July 05, 2006, 05:30:00 PM »
A little birdie whispered in my ear that the 4th at Pebble is the smallest green there, but Geoff already guessed that.

I always found it odd that the greens at Pebble are so small, as they didn't seem particularly small when I was there, nor do they seem particularly small on TV.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

JWL

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #89 on: July 05, 2006, 05:42:02 PM »
Bogey obviously has some inside information because he correctly name the 11th as the smallest green at PB...exactly 16 sq ft smaller than his previous guess of #8.
Wait...he was only supposed to get one guess.   LOL

JWL

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #90 on: July 05, 2006, 05:44:35 PM »
I forgot to mention that the 11th green is listed at 2493 sq ft. for those with inquiring minds who wanted to know :)

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #91 on: July 05, 2006, 05:45:22 PM »
I am now logging out and heading to the Mapco to purchase my first Tennessee lottery ticket ever.  I am obviously hotter than a pair of jumper cables at a Skynyrd concert.

JWL,

Do I win an autograph from JWN?

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

JWL

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sebonack, an interesting study
« Reply #92 on: July 05, 2006, 05:53:25 PM »
If someone would have guessed correctly on their FIRST guess, I was prepared to set up an afternoon of golf, with free lessons, and dinner at the Bear's Club.
However, since you were not able to pull it off on your first try, you win NADA.   Nice guess though!

I can't believe I just got a request for Jack's autograph from the GCA board.   Wow!   Maybe I should go buy a lottery ticket!