Pebble Beach No. 5 (Old and New)

[Dan Kelly]

On pgatour.com's Live@7, Bill Kratzert just said that the new No. 5 at Pebble Beach gets a "hundred percent thumbs up" over the old No. 5.

By that, I don't think he meant that 100 percent of his own thumbs are up; I think he meant that 100 percent of all thumbs would be up about the change.

If I heard him correctly (I'm "working," too!): His complaint about the old No. 5 was that it was nearly impossible to lag a putt from the back to a front pin and get it within 3 or 4 feet.

He didn't say why he likes the new No. 5.

What do you Pebbleheads think?

[JESII]

The new #5 has totally screwed up the ebb and flow of the golf course, the routing has gone to s**t...

[Rick Shefchik]

I remember a long discussion about this subject a couple of years ago, and JES II's opinion was the prevailing one among those who'd played Pebble a number of times prior to the new #5.

I have no way to argue with that, since I've only played the new #5, but I can say that I like the new hole very much. It's a dangerous, attention-grabbing tee shot (with a tough up and down if you bail out left), and it has vastly better scenery -- which, after all, is rather important at Pebble Beach.

As for the flow of the round, I didn't mind walking back up the hill to the 6th tee. Not a bit.

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan:

You are evil, if unintentionally so.  And I am prepared to believe your malice here is unintentional.

As Rick says, not all that long ago, we had a pretty heated and contentious discussion in here about this exact issue.  It was basically me against Adam Clayman and I believe Sully also (given his take in this thread).  They found flow issues, I found no such thing.

And good lord do I not want to go over it again.

But just to answer your question, it is clear that there's no way 100% of all golfers like the new hole better.  In fact again as Rick says, in here I think I was in a very clear minority in saying that.

Just do understand that I too have played the hole before and after... in fact many times before, only once after.

TH

[Dan Kelly]

You are evil, if unintentionally so.

I believe I remember Sister Stephen Marie's teaching me that evil must be intentional!

(Missed the prior discussion. Must have been off living my so-called life.)

I've played only the old No. 5 -- and I remember liking it, and thinking it pretty darn scenic in its own way.

The new hole looks nice, too.

You want evil? Check that book Rick is advertising!

[Tim Leahy]

the old #5 was an ordinary par 3, nothing special that could be found on any muni in America, the new hole brings the ocean into play and just adds to the course's ambience.

[Adam Clayman]

If I used my game as a basis to evaluate golf holes, I too would prefer the newer form. Luckily I don't, and appreciated the old #5 for it's ability to make me want to become a better ball striker.

As for the contention that one could not putt within three feet from green back to front, is preposterous in it's premise. On poa greens anyone who says they are too fast for the slope is either playing in the U.S. Open or delusional. I'm not familiar with Kratzert's pedigree.

Huck, I believe it was more than just me who was part of the discussion. I even think Dan King weighed in this one. Plus, asking you about flow is like asking Pat Mucci about the steel mills in Gary Indiana.

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

Well, others weighed in on my side as well.

And I believe I have a fine take on flow, thank you very much -or at least better than 99% of all golfers as at least I recognize it and value it. If I disagree about a specific instance, well... that's honest disagreement.

So you are absolved, my friend.

 

[JESII]

But Tom,

Now you have to walk all the way back to the 6th tee up on the hill...

[Tom Huckaby]

But Tom,

Now you have to walk all the way back to the 6th tee up on the hill...

But Sully:  with the old hole you turned away from the ocean to play one silly inland hole, then turned back to it, creating an even worse disruption of flow.

Do we REALLY need to go over it again?

 

[JESII]

Don't you find the "walk in the park" test to be the best way to determine the quality of a courses routing? For me personally, it just seemed natural to head inland for a bit after a few hundred yards along the bluffs...

[Tom Huckaby]

Don't you find the "walk in the park" test to be the best way to determine the quality of a courses routing? For me personally, it just seemed natural to head inland for a bit after a few hundred yards along the bluffs...

It did not at all seem natural to me.  If I was hiking that area sans golf course, no way would I turn inland and walk up a hill... I'd follow the cliffs... which the new hole does, perfectly... at the cost of a little jaunt back to the tee on 6, which to me still makes it a net positive.

But this is the honest disagreement I mentioned in my post to Adam.

[Kyle Harris]

Don't you find the "walk in the park" test to be the best way to determine the quality of a courses routing? For me personally, it just seemed natural to head inland for a bit after a few hundred yards along the bluffs...

It did not at all seem natural to me.  If I was hiking that area sans golf course, no way would I turn inland and walk up a hill... I'd follow the cliffs... which the new hole does, perfectly... at the cost of a little jaunt back to the tee on 6, which to me still makes it a net positive.

But this is the honest disagreement I mentioned in my post to Adam.

Tom,

Couldn't help but point out to ask why you'd turn inland to walk up to the area of the sixth in your walk in the park example.

[JESII]

Tom,

I've got to go so I'll let you off the hook. I was on your side in that other conversation, and still agree with you. I just figured it might be fun to needle a bit. My support must be tempered by the fact that I never played the original hole and don't really know where it went or what it looked like. The new one looks great, plays well and if you try hard enough, you can even find the 6th tee after leaving the green. That's my stance.

Have a great weekend.


p.s.  just saw Kyle's question, and I'm going to let you explain Tom...

[Tom Huckaby]

You got me and good, Sully! Well done.

Kyle - in a perfect world, I wouldn't.  I'd love it if they changed 6 to put a tee below and right of the current 5 green, making it one of the world's great risk/reward short par fours.  But the hole is what it is and it's a pretty darn cool par five as well.  The point is that I find the requirement to walk back to that tee no big deal... whereas I always did find the requirement to turn away from very cool cliffs to play an entire golf hole nowhere near such to be jarring; not to mention that you went around someone's fenced-off properly and as Sully alludes to, needed a sign and a walk or ride continuing along such ugly fence to find the 6th tee.  

Adam and others disagree completely; expect them to state such sooner or later.

[George_Williams]

Played the old #5 twice- once we had to play a temporary green and the other time the green was in horrible condition, but in play.  Green was too small & had way too much shade to maintain acceptable turf- even poa!  So, flow or no flow, it had to go.......

[Kyle Harris]

You got me and good, Sully! Well done.

Kyle - in a perfect world, I wouldn't.  I'd love it if they changed 6 to put a tee below and right of the current 5 green, making it one of the world's great risk/reward short par fours.  But the hole is what it is and it's a pretty darn cool par five as well.  The point is that I find the requirement to walk back to that tee no big deal... whereas I always did find the requirement to turn away from very cool cliffs to play an entire golf hole nowhere near such to be jarring; not to mention that you went around someone's fenced-off properly and as Sully alludes to, needed a sign and a walk or ride continuing along such ugly fence to find the 6th tee.  

Adam and others disagree completely; expect them to state such sooner or later.

I think your argument MIGHT be better suited if you said, "Hey look, a hilltop, maybe I could get a bigger view of the ocean from up there, so I'll leave the cliffside and walk up to the top"

But what do I know?  

[Kalen Braley]

I don't understand all this nonsense about walking to the next tee.  Its a non-issue!!!

If you're playing pebble you got to cart it so you have somewhere to carry your camera and 6 pack!!!  

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle - gotcha if you mean the walk to the next tee.  Just understand it's really not that far and certainly not any walk to the top of a hill... I really believe those who complaim about it make much ado about nothing.

But I like your style... Here's what the old walk meant:

Hey look, a fenced off property filled with huge tall trees!  Let's walk up that hill so we can get behind it, leaving the ocean for awhile - this ocean is getting boring.  Then let's wind through the trees along the hideous fence so we can make our way back to a view of the ocean.  I do like adventure.

But what do I know either?

 

[Kalen Braley]

If anyone cares...

Google earth puts the walk from the 5th green to the White tee box on 6 at .08 miles which is ~140 yards.  So its a bit of walk but when you are walking 4-5 miles for the entire course, seems a bit trivial.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen - I wouldn't have guessed it's even that far.  But the distance isn't what bothers the flowmongers; it's more that you have to walk backwards along the line of play.  And that does suck.

But it also doesn't make the old hole better than the new in the overall; because as I've described, the old hole had flow issues of it's own.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I like the look of the new hole but I also enjoyed the old one.  I've played the old version about a dozen times or so and only walked the new and watched golfers play.  

The one thing I will miss (should I ever bother to play PB again) will be the walk from old #5 green through the trees to the magnificent vista of #6 looking out to the sea. That walk rivaled (but not quite) the one at Cypress from 14 -15.

[Kyle Harris]

But I like your style...

Reminds me of a joke:

So, in a third grade class a teacher asks the question, "If I have 10 birds lined up on a fence, and I shoot one, how many are left?"

A smart aleck in the back of the class shouted out, "Zero, cause the sound of the gunshot would scare them all away."

The teacher smiled politely and said, "Well yes, but I was looking for the answer 9, but I like the way you think."

The smart aleck, being quick on his feet responds, "Okay teacher, I have a question for you: There are three women on a bench, each eating an ice cream cone. One is biting it, one is licking it, one is sucking it - which one is married?"

The teacher doesn't think for long before saying, "Well, the one sucking it."

The student responds, "No, the one with the ring on her finger, but I like the way you think."

[Kalen Braley]

I'm with you on this one Tom.

Choice A:  Play to an elevated green, tucken in a small patch of trees with an unsightly fence and road behind.

Choice B: Play to a green that hugs the coastline and provides wonderful views of the ocean below.

I take choice B on this one.

In addition if memory serves me right, there was no ground game option to the old 5th green, it was all carry.  The new 5th green can be played this way and also has a bailout area short of the green.  Did the old 5th green have any bailout area?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Personally, I think the walk back to the 6th tee is worth it:



Who cares if you have to walk a little bit back uphill?  It's 'the
greatest (golf) walk on earth', right?  

Not to mention, you get to leave your bag down below.  The
problem with the new version of #5 is that the back tee is
 always closed (or at least it was when I was there).  It was
merely a 140-yard pitching wedge:

 

The old #5 wasn't bad, though, semi-blind uphill shot to yet another small green: