[Pete Lavallee]

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?

[Phil Benedict]

Pros and psuedo-golfers

I haven't seen such disdainful rhetoric since George Wallace's "pointy-headed intellectuals" or Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism."

[Adam Clayman]

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.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jeff M -

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

George,

I'm flattered. Thanks.

We had a really busy year, which kept me away from GolfClubAtlas.com a bit. Now that winter has arrived in Canada, yet again, you might notice a few more posts from me, here and there!

Cheers,

[JESII]

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

[Tom_Doak]

Tom H:  For whatever it's worth, I think Jack got the putt to about 6-7 feet by putting over the top of the convex contour at the top of the tier.  I was trying to go around it on either side because I knew there was no way it would stop if I putted over the high spot.  (The greens were rolling around 11 on the Stimpmeter ... Jim Lipe had told Garret the day before that they weren't fast enough.  I guess he wanted to see whether my reputation as a good putter was deserved.)  Perhaps Jim could tell you whether it was inside six feet or not; anyway Jack did not try the second putt.

Phil:  One person's marginal shot is another player's good shot, that's why fairness is so hard to define.

Re:  the original topic of #17 at Pebble:  the hole is never going to be changed because of the memory of Jack's shot and Watson's shot, even if they help prove that the hole is darned near impossible to play.  Both of them made a 2, but if they hadn't hit the pin, both were going to make 4.

[Tom Huckaby]

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

[PThomas]

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.

a similar point came up on a recent thread......is this a new line of thinking, that if "I'm on the green, two putting should be easy"?  who came up with such a nonsensical thought?

it was probably a bad putter who did

absolute rubbish

 

[PThomas]

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?

[PThomas]

from Jack's last book, "My Story", re 17 during the final round of the US Open:

"The pin was where my subconscious had seen it, on the right side of the greens left rear section, making it virtually impossible to get up and down from a  miss to the right.  But close up on the left was the Pacific Ocean.  Bale out to the right side and take a sure bogey?  To heck with it.  "Give me the one-iron" I told Angelo [Angelo wasn't his caddy for the Open during those days, was he???] and took dead aim at the flag."

[Lou_Duran]

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.

[JWL]

TOM D

In regard to your statement that I told Garrett, the supt, that the green speeds were not fast enough, I don't want it to be misconstrued that the greens were at 11 and I didn't think they were fast enough.   The only conversation I had in regard to the green speed was that they should not be over about 10 on a regular basis.   As I recall, this is the speed that everyone had agreed on when finishing the greens.
IF Garrett cut the greens faster than what they were the day before the opening, it wasn't at my direction to make them any faster than 10.
I recall your putt on 13 and Jack also giving it a try.   I think Jack was in agreement with your premise that the approach shot put you in a position that you had to hit an incredible putt (one that might not even be possible) from the position you found yourself in.  You had to make a great second putt to salvage par.  A really bad first putt would have easily gone off the front of the green.  I recall you hitting a pretty decent first putt.  I think he was little more concerned about the results of your putt on #4, but that was more a result of an unfair pin placement on the green in his opinion.  Bad pin placements by the maintenance crew at any golf course can cause screwy results.
Sebonack is a course that great care needs to be taken by Garrett and his staff to make sure the cup placement doesn't make the putting impossible.

[ForkaB]

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!
 

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

Sorry if I misrepresented your point of view on the green speed for Opening Day, I had heard something second-hand.  I agree completely that building greens like Sebonack's is dangerous in that we rely on the maintenance crew to be careful with the hole locations, or they will make us look like sadists.  It's hard enough with the holes in the right places!

Congrats to whichever of your associates worked on that Concession project with Jack -- it beat out some of my best work.

[BCrosby]

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

[Geoffrey Childs]

Lets not revise history too much.

Rich- The wind on 17 when Jack his his 1 iron was dead into him and not behind him. The wind certainly aided the shot in stopping if it had not hit the pin.

I don't believe that ball was going very far past the pin.  It may not have been in sure or even probable birdie range but it surely was not headed into oblivion over the green.

#10 at Dornoch is dear to my heart as it was the site of my first birdie ever in Scotland and my first round on a links golf course.   As you said it was a simple 9 iron to a front pin.  Next day the wind was dead into us and the evil greenskeeper used the very back tee near the beach and a back left pin and it was a 2 iron that slid off the first third of the green on the right and into the swale- bogie!

[ForkaB]

Bob

Apology accepted.  You need to get out more.

Geoff

You need to get out more, too.

Cheers

Rich

[Adam Clayman]

17th at  PB...

Bob, The first time I ever heard anyone consider the front bunker was on this thread.

In hindsight it may be a prudent play, but when you're standing there over the shot, nobody ever tries to make the bunker!

[Geoffrey Childs]

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  

[JESII]

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.

Agree with the above 100%. I guess that is part of (a big part) of the explanation for less quirky design from most former Tour pros.


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).

Each time I read this I laugh a little harder. Well done!

[tonyt]

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.

[Phil Benedict]

I think what top players believe is that the bounce of the ball shouldn't undermine the ability they have to control the flight of the ball, at least not on a regular basis.  A hole becomes screwy when there is no way to flight the ball and get a good result, without being really lucky.  One can make an educated guess on the bounce of the ball, but the only thing anyone can control is their flight.  When you're Jack Nicklaus and your flight control is at the highest level, you are likely to be skeptical of design concepts that emphasize bounce.

[JESII]

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.

[Tom_Doak]

JES:  Some things balance out others with regard to wind, but not completely; anytime there is wind the course overall is going to play a bit tougher.  Basically, the wind puts some holes out of reach, and even if others are within reach it's hard to make the ball stop near the hole.

I've thought about that a lot in the course of spending years in Bandon, Lubbock, and Tasmania, among other windy sites.

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.

[Walt_Cutshall]

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.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()