Jack Nicklaus on "screwy results"

[Phil Benedict]

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.

[BCrosby]

No. It is quite the opposite.

He hit too much club on 17 that day. His shot should have run off the back of the green. Jack was very, very lucky. Fairness had nothing to do with the outcome.

Jack's quote is Exhibit A-1 as to why world class golfers rarely make good golf architects.

Bob

[Phil Benedict]

No. It is quite the opposite.

He hit too much club on 17 that day. If his shot would have run off the back of the green but for the pin, his result was lucky. Fairness had nothing to do with the outcome.

Jack's quote is Exhibit A-1 as to why world class golfers rarely make good golf architects.

Bob

I probably shouldn't speak for Jack but what the heck.  If asked to elaborate, I think he would say that green doesn't have enough depth where they had the pin given that the hole required a long iron or fairway wood.  He hit a 1-iron.  Maybe that was what he needed to carry the trouble in front of the green.  Maybe the problem with the hole is that it doesn't allow for the ground option, although I doubt that's what Jack means.

[Adam Clayman]

Not reasonable!

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.

It's preposterous boring golf bordering on the egomaniacal.

[Steve Lang]

 

Well he did consider which club groove he was going to hit on right??

[Walt_Cutshall]

There seems to be an ongoing theme that the best golfers in the world can't judge the quality of a golf course. That seems to be a very bizarre premise.

I don't know how Jack could have hit less club into 17 and still carried the trouble in front. FWIW, I agree with the crazy idea that good shots should be rewarded and bad shots should be penalized.

[Jason Topp]

No. It is quite the opposite.

He hit too much club on 17 that day. If his shot would have run off the back of the green but for the pin, his result was lucky. Fairness had nothing to do with the outcome.

Jack's quote is Exhibit A-1 as to why world class golfers rarely make good golf architects.

Bob

I generally agree that claims of unfairness are overblown to the point that they should almost always be dismissed, I think this example is one where Nicklaus is right on.

Where did you expect him to hit it?  In the bunker?  As I recall, the shot barely landed on the green, took a huge hop and slammed into the pin.  No one hit it higher or landed it softer than Nicklaus.  As maintained that day, it appeared to me like a screwy hole.

I do not think, however, that this example should drive a general philosophy of GCA.  Examples of unfairness are exceedingly rare.  Examples of boring are commonplace.

[Garland Bayley]

You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole! They all have to deal with it! Jack got lucky. He may not have been hitting too much club to suit the strategy he had chosen for the hole, but when it comes down to it he got lucky.

[David Stamm]

"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."



JACK CHOSE TO GO AT THE PIN. WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT YOU "HAVE TO" DO ANYTHING? MY QUESTION TO JACK WOULD BE, DO YOU THINK YOU GOT REWADED FOR WHAT YOU DID THERE? WHERE YOU PLANNING TO HIT THE PIN? IF THE MAN DOESN'T LIKE SCREWY RESULTS, I WONDER HOW HE REALLY FEELS ABOUT LINKS GOLF, BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW, THE UNPREDICTABLE HAPPENS THERE ALL THE TIME, WHETHER YOU HIT A GOOD SHOT OR NOT. I WONDER IF HE FELT HE HIT A GOOD SHOT WHEN HE TOOK A 10 AT 14 ON TOC? NOT TO SOUND LIKE A HALLMARK CARD, BUT LIKE LIFE, S**T HAPPENS, EVEN AFTER YOUR BEST EFFORTS!

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.

WHAT IS UNFAIR?

[A.G._Crockett]

There seems to be an ongoing theme that the best golfers in the world can't judge the quality of a golf course. That seems to be a very bizarre premise.

I don't know how Jack could have hit less club into 17 and still carried the trouble in front. FWIW, I agree with the crazy idea that good shots should be rewarded and bad shots should be penalized.

I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that good shots should be rewarded.  What constitutes a good shot on a particular hole, however, is a pretty elastic concept.

If the proper play on a hole is to stay below the hole, and a player hits a particular club perfectly and ends up in the middle of the green above the hole with an impossible putt, is that a good shot?  If I hit a putt perfectly (as opposed to a perfect putt), but much too hard, should my perfectly struck putt be rewarded somehow?  

Nicklaus hit a shot with a club that would carry onto the green on a day in which that was not the optimum play UNLESS you could hit the flagstick.  If instead he had gone through the green, I can't understand how that could be termed a "good shot" and why it should be rewarded JUST BECAUSE HE HIT THE BALL PERFECTLY.

One of the major criticisms of early Nicklaus designs was that he built too many holes, especially par fours, where the only play was a high fade.  He's corrected that in his designs, thankfully.

[Phil Benedict]

You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole!

But if the architecture or setup are such that they negate the advantages the more skillful players ought to have, then there is something wrong with the architecture or setup.  I think that's Jack's philosophy.  When the best player in the world requires serendipity - hitting the flag from 220 yards - in order to get a decent result, it's a bad hole or setup.

[Garland Bayley]

You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole!

But if the architecture or setup are such that they negate the advantages the more skillful players ought to have, then there is something wrong with the architecture or setup.  I think that's Jack's philosophy.  When the best player in the world requires serendipity - hitting the flag from 220 yards - in order to get a decent result, it's a bad hole or setup.

Jack was not particularly great at bunker shots. So this hole did not suit him as well as others. So what! His game gave him the advantage on most of the other 17 holes. Just because JN can't play a hole well does not make it a bad hole. Perhaps we should ask Tom Watson about the quality of the hole.

[BCrosby]

Garland is correct. Everyone played the same hole.

It may be an extremely difficult hole. It may be a badly designed hole. But that was the test that everyone in the class was asked to take that day.

The 17th is actually a very good hole. You reach that back pin with a right to left shot hit along the diagonal of the green. Jack hit it directly at the pin and simply lucked out.

Bob

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think the green on 17 at Pebble maybe needs to be another 5 yards deep. Its a bit tight for 220 or whatever. I thought it was a pretty poor hole (too hard a shot for the size of the green and it looks really bland and dissapointing from the tee)

Pebble Beach was my biggest dissapointment in playing a golf course. Holes 7-8-9-10-18 are fantastic but there are several very dull lookers 1-3-5 (as was) 11-12-15-17.

[David Stamm]

There seems to be an ongoing theme that the best golfers in the world can't judge the quality of a golf course. That seems to be a very bizarre premise.


I THINK, WALT, THAT'S BECAUSE THE BEST GOLFERS THINK W/ THEIR OWN ABILITIES WHEN DESIGNING A COURSE. NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT SOME DO. THEY THINK THAT THEIR SUPERIOIR ABILITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO OVERPOWER THE COURSE, BUT AS TIGER HAS DEMONSTRATED AND OTHERS OF THE PAST, EXECUTING THE SHOTS AND MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

I don't know how Jack could have hit less club into 17 and still carried the trouble in front. FWIW, I agree with the crazy idea that good shots should be rewarded and bad shots should be penalized.


BUT IT WAS HIS DECISION TO GO AT THE PIN. THE EXECUTION OF THE SHOT AND THE RIGHT DECISION AREN'T ALWAYS MADE BY THE GREAT PLAYERS. PERHAPS THAT DAY, THE HOLE WAS NOT A "GREEN LIGHT" AS THEY LIKE SAYING ON TV AND THE PROPER PLAY WAS PLAYING FOR PAR. YES, GOOD SHOTS AREN'T ALWAYS REWARDED, BUT WAS THE SHOT YOU CHOSE TO PLAY THE PROPER PLAY. IT WAS HIS DECISION TO CARRY THE TROUBLE UP FRONT AND IF HE HADN'T HIT THE PIN, HOW WOULD JACK'S LEGACY HAVE BEEN PERCIEVED? EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT THE GAME MANAGEMENT THAT MADE UP PART OF WHAT MADE JACK SO GREAT. IN THIS CASE, JACK SEEMS TO HAVE DODGED A BULLET BY PRESSING THE ISSUE.

[A.G._Crockett]

You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole!

But if the architecture or setup are such that they negate the advantages the more skillful players ought to have, then there is something wrong with the architecture or setup.  I think that's Jack's philosophy.  When the best player in the world requires serendipity - hitting the flag from 220 yards - in order to get a decent result, it's a bad hole or setup.

Only if you assume that the advantage of the skillful player ought to consist only of hitting greens and getting close to pins from 220 out.  What about other skills?  Good GCA should test ALL skills, not just high fades with long irons.

[David Stamm]

You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole!

But if the architecture or setup are such that they negate the advantages the more skillful players ought to have, then there is something wrong with the architecture or setup.  I think that's Jack's philosophy.  When the best player in the world requires serendipity - hitting the flag from 220 yards - in order to get a decent result, it's a bad hole or setup.

Only if you assume that the advantage of the skillful player ought to consist only of hitting greens and getting close to pins from 220 out.  What about other skills?  Good GCA should test ALL skills, not just high fades with long irons.

Precisely! And making the right decisions is every bit as important as executing the shots. Without the good management, you can execute great shots all day long and it won't get you far.

[Garland Bayley]

There seems to be an ongoing theme that the best golfers in the world can't judge the quality of a golf course. That seems to be a very bizarre premise.

I don't know how Jack could have hit less club into 17 and still carried the trouble in front. FWIW, I agree with the crazy idea that good shots should be rewarded and bad shots should be penalized.

By the way Walt. Welcome to GCA!  

[Garland Bayley]

You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole!

But if the architecture or setup are such that they negate the advantages the more skillful players ought to have, then there is something wrong with the architecture or setup.  I think that's Jack's philosophy.  When the best player in the world requires serendipity - hitting the flag from 220 yards - in order to get a decent result, it's a bad hole or setup.

Phil,

You're at 450 posts! Shouldn't you know better by now?
 

[Lloyd_Cole]

You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole!

But if the architecture or setup are such that they negate the advantages the more skillful players ought to have, then there is something wrong with the architecture or setup.  I think that's Jack's philosophy.  When the best player in the world requires serendipity - hitting the flag from 220 yards - in order to get a decent result, it's a bad hole or setup.

Phil,

You're at 450 posts! Shouldn't you know better by now?
 

Garland,
Who do you think you are - Pat Mucci?
Are we only allowed one conclusion per discussion?

I think it is interesting that no one has noted that this quote is quite out of character for Jack who has repeatedly spoken out against the concept of 'fairness'. I wonder if we might find the context of this quote? And regarding the shot, it was also, frankly out of character.. where did Jack lie, at the time?

[Garland Bayley]

You play the hole as it is! You don't demand there be enough room on the green to allow you to carry the trouble! Everyone plays the same hole!

But if the architecture or setup are such that they negate the advantages the more skillful players ought to have, then there is something wrong with the architecture or setup.  I think that's Jack's philosophy.  When the best player in the world requires serendipity - hitting the flag from 220 yards - in order to get a decent result, it's a bad hole or setup.

Phil,

You're at 450 posts! Shouldn't you know better by now?
 

Garland,
Who do you think you are - Pat Mucci?
Are we only allowed one conclusion per discussion?

I think it is interesting that no one has noted that this quote is quite out of character for Jack who has repeatedly spoken out against the concept of 'fairness'. I wonder if we might find the context of this quote? And regarding the shot, it was also, frankly out of character.. where did Jack lie, at the time?

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!

 

[Dan Kelly]

If even the greatest players in the world must be rash, under certain conditions, to aim directly at (or even near) a pin, does that make the hole's design (or maintenance) unacceptable?

I say no.

[Phil Benedict]

Garland,

I am still stung by being relegated to Junior Member.  It's like having to eat at the little kids table again!

BTW, several participants in this thread have questioned Jack's course management on the shot in question.  I suppose it's possible that he made the wrong choice and just got lucky, but given what I know about the man, it's hard to believe he had a better option to begin with.

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.

[Garland Bayley]

Phil,

You think you have it bad. I was once a God!
 

[Tom_Doak]

This does sound like Jack, and just like 98% of Tour pros.  If your fame and fortune rested on the outcome of golf shots, you would think the same way ... but it doesn't, and because it doesn't for most people, that does not have to be all that golf is about.

I have never been able to decide whether the 17th hole at Pebble Beach is a good hole or not.  I found Bob Crosby's description fascinating ... but I have personally seen more people play the hole with a 1-iron off the flagstick (one) than with a draw through the little neck of the green (zero).