[Tommy_Naccarato]

Hardly any stuff on this from this weekend. I'm disappointed in you guys! Especially after some interesting comment on it from earlier in the week.

Scores from the 4th of the Top 5 finishers:

Phil
Round 1-2
Round 2-3
Round 3-5
Round 4-3
Total--13
Arron Oberholser
Round 1-2
Round 2-3
Round 3-5
Round 4-3
Total--13
Tiger (Woods, not Bernhardt )
Round 1-6
Round 2-2
Round 3-4
Round 4-4
Total--16
Brent Wetterich
Round 1-4
Round 2-4
Round 3-3
Round 4-4
Total--15
Aaron Baddley
Round 1-2
Round 2-3
Round 3-5
Round 4-3
Total--13

Now, I'm not a numbers guy, but I know there is truth in them and to them in golf. Even though Phil played magnificently and seemed to be fearless against El Tigre, it would seem to me if your looking at numbers that Tiger Woods, the greatest player in the world if not of all-time, may have lost this tournament because of this hole....or did he?

Actually my question here is if the architecture won? If it did, then "Long live golf architecture!" The greatest champion of them all!

[John Kavanaugh]

Phil made double today on the only hole without a bunker...Long live textbooks and architecture.  Ch 146 on XM was architecture central with interviews with Klein, Faxon and Hanse.  Is Hanse pronounced like the neck device that Dale Sr. was not wearing (HANS)?  I always thought his name sounded more like panze.

[D_Malley]

Hanse Pronounciation

Pants with an H instaed of a P

[Brad Klein]

Tommy,

Tiger didn't lose the tournament on the 4th hole Thursday; he lost because his putting speed was off when he needed it, today. When's the last time he's three-putted four times within the space of six holes, as he did ending yesterday/starting today?

By the way, while it was nice to see strategy reintroduced via that short par-4, I didn't see a shred of strategy on the 412-yard 17th. Looks like everybody just layed up and played from there.

[Matt_Cohn]

Just to be contrarian, I didn't see anybody lay up on the 4th. Didn't every player hit the club that would put them on the front of the green?

There aren't even any different places you can aim there.

I do think it's a cool hole but it seems like of any options available, only one was ever taken.

[John Kavanaugh]

Hanse Pronounciation

Pants with an H instaed of a P

Thank you...I don't get how the guy on XM got it so wrong.  Today was the first day that I got to see any of the course on TV.  I thought the white sand made the course look like a pig with lipstick.  Was it really possible to make the course that great given its core intent or is it just prettier in a classical kind of way.  Did anyone else hear the Faxon interview...It sounded like an after midnight GCA drunkfest of name and course dropping.  The guy knows how to smooze architectural.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

I'm with Brad on his view of the 17th. I was thinking Sunday, "Oberholser has to go for this with driver." Nope. Nobody did. I'd love to see how many players did not lay up. Faldo made a comment about it in the first round when it became apparent everyone was laying up. He said in his experience if the risk did not give at least a four-club advantage PGA pros would not go for it.

Anthony

[Cliff Hamm]

Just to be contrarian, I didn't see anybody lay up on the 4th. Didn't every player hit the club that would put them on the front of the green?

There aren't even any different places you can aim there.

I do think it's a cool hole but it seems like of any options available, only one was ever taken.

Having watched the 4th on Friday and again today everyone plays it the same way.  I would guess that over 50% of the drives end up in the trap to the left of the green.  The hole is exciting to watch but does not really offer many options.  Almost plays like a long par 3.  Is it great architecture?  After seeing it I don't think so but it does make for great theatre.

Ditto the comments on 17.  Saw no one try to drive over the embankments.  The hole looks great but doesn't really flow with the rest of the course.

As for the sand it really isn't all that white, at least by Florida standards.

Overall, the course is much improved and hope that Hanse continues to tinker with it.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

My take on the 4th is like watching today's pros play the 10th at Riviera.  They think they have to go for it.  They are thinking about a possible 2, a definite 3 and fail to look back and wonder if they were to lay up, a 3 and at worst 4 would be their score.
They think a 5 is made by their poor play, not poor thinking.  They truly believe they can overpower every hole they play (well maybe not the 13th at ANGC).

[JESII]

Of the Top 5 there were 4 twos, 7 threes, 3 fives and a six...I wonder if this was representative of the field...anybody have that shotlink thing? Or whatever it is that gives really good stats...

What's there is good, similar stuff through the field will be great even if every single player hit driver each round...it's not choosing different options, it's different people...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dr. Klein,
Unfortunately I didn't even watch the tournament, well at least I saw very little of it. I don't even know the par of #17, nor what type of hole it is, but I do know that the 4th, one of the more talked about golf holes of the tournament served it's purpose by giving some much needed excitement to a PGA Tour broadcast, and it seemed all weekend up here in Tacoma that people we're talking or at least interested in the golf course.

I think the PGA Tour take a chance here by forgoing their normal routine--their normal set-up. They could have pushed the hole back and made it less of an eagle opportunity, right? I think this is a winning situation for golf architecture and Golf in general. Bring some excitement back to the boob tube.

But in the end, bad putting stroke and all, Tiger three-putted the hole in the last round. Take three strokes off of that final talley--if he plays to par on a 298 yard hole--there is nothing text book about it. After all, These Guys Are Good.....

[BCrosby]

Of the Top 5 there were 4 twos, 7 threes, 3 fives and a six...I wonder if this was representative of the field...anybody have that shotlink thing? Or whatever it is that gives really good stats...

What's there is good, similar stuff through the field will be great even if every single player hit driver each round...it's not choosing different options, it's different people...

I too would love to the field's scoring on that hole.

Based on the scoring provided above, there were nice spreads. Which is always a good thing. (A call for TEP. Mr. TEP, please pick up the white phone.)

As Lynn notes, people were tempted to take risks they didn't have to take. Some pulled it off and others paid the price. A good working definition of effective strategic design.

Bob

[Phil Benedict]

From what I saw there wasn't that much "strategy" on the hole since virtually everyone went for the green.  Basically it played like a long par 3.  On the best short par 4's (10th at Riviera and 17th at Oakmont) the players have more options.  Tiger's double was a bit of a fluke since he messed up a routine bunker shot which ended up in the lip of the same bunker.  

[BCrosby]

Phil -

If there are choices, then strategy is involved. You have to make a choice.

Scoring spreads are a sign of how interesting or uninteresting those choices are. If the scoring range is narrow (that is, bunches of scores at or around par, for example) that's a tipoff that the choices weren't, in fact, very interesting ones.

But with scores that are spread, the choices have more teeth. You ought to give things a think or two at the tee. Because there is apparently some pretty serious downside.

The fact that most PGA players came up with same choice at the tee suggests, given the scoring spreads, that lots of them were making bad choices. Not that there are no choices.

Bob

[Phil Benedict]

Bob,

I didn't see enough play on the hole to gauge what risk the players were taking by going for the green, or how laying back was a less risky option.  Did you see any one lay up with an iron?

Scoring spread is certainly a valid way to evaluate a hole.  

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Phil, I didn't see Corey Pavin play the hole.
For your knowledge, I have followed the 10th Riviera for about 30 years.  It has gone from 90% of players laying up to 90% of players hitting driver.  I suspect the scoring hasn't changed much over the years.

[Phil Benedict]

Lynn,

Again, I didn't see enough of the hole to judge its strategic merit.  It looked like a lot of guys ended up in the left front bunker, which wasn't a terrible place.  Driving the green didn't seem all that challenging (Baddelay made it with a three wood on Friday) and going for the green didn't strike me as a gamble per se.  

I have seen enough of the 10th at Riviera to know that an off-line driver can leave you with no shot because of the angle and narrowness of the green.  It's a great hole because hitting driver is a gamble.  The same can be said of ther 17th at Oakmont, although laying up was no bargain either.

[Tim Gavrich]

Is #4 at TPC Boston now the best sub-300 yard par 4 on a TPC course in New England?  Is it more exciting than #15 at River Highlands?

[Brad Swanson]

I would love to hear what the architect(s) thought of the results after seeing the pros play the hole for 4 days.  Did it play as they intended?  Did the pros have an easier time with it than they expected?  

Cheers,
Brad

[Brad Tufts]

I don't think #15 at TPC River Highlands is less than about 330 yards, but I think #4 at TPC may be a better hole.

From what I remember, #15 at TPCRH is much like the 17th at Scottsdale.  Hit it very straight onto a green with a pond short left.

#4 at TPC has more options.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm not familiar with the hole in question but isn't it possible to have a hole with huge scoring spreads and absolutely no strategy or options whatsoever? I guess by that I mean a do or die hole with very penal hazards and a very exacting target.

Heck, I'd think the seventeenth at TPC Sawgrass would have a pretty large scoring spread when there's any significant wind. Yet the only choice involved is whether to aim directly at the flag or if not, how far away. If that hole is strategic then the word has no useful meaning at all.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Lynn,

Again, I didn't see enough of the hole to judge its strategic merit.  It looked like a lot of guys ended up in the left front bunker, which wasn't a terrible place.  Driving the green didn't seem all that challenging (Baddelay made it with a three wood on Friday) and going for the green didn't strike me as a gamble per se.  

I have seen enough of the 10th at Riviera to know that an off-line driver can leave you with no shot because of the angle and narrowness of the green.  It's a great hole because hitting driver is a gamble.  The same can be said of ther 17th at Oakmont, although laying up was no bargain either.

Phil,
Have you been to Riviera and have you played the entire, original #10? (No alternate green)

The reason why I ask, you forgot to mention the two most important factors of that narrow green as well as the placement of the tee shot. Name them.

With that, also have you played the 4th at TPC of Boston? I'm assuming you haven't, and I myself have yet to even see an image of it, so I feel I'm not capable of judging the golf hole, only pointing out that the scores show that that there was an excitement area of the tournament, and from the bottom line, Tiger lost three strokes to Phil at the 4th which could have won him the tournament by one stroke.

Gil's love for Riviera and having one of his most able design partners as the guy that wrote the book on Thomas, I have no doubts that what they were trying to accomplish, simply worked. Opposite of you, I like Bob and Lynn find the hole completely strategic. Especially in the half par sense.

But that's me.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I'm not familiar with the hole in question but isn't it possible to have a hole with huge scoring spreads and absolutely no strategy or options whatsoever? I guess by that I mean a do or die hole with very penal hazards and a very exacting target.

Heck, I'd think the seventeenth at TPC Sawgrass would have a pretty large scoring spread when there's any significant wind. Yet the only choice involved is whether to aim directly at the flag or if not, how far away. If that hole is strategic then the word has no useful meaning at all.

Brent,
If this was the mindset, then there would be no such as a strategic par 3 one-shot hole.

The difference is that the strategy plays itself out at the tee. The chance to score is the strategy because the mindset is your going to go for it most every time. This is where GREAT golf holes begin. the strategy is you can lay-up, take your chances in the bunker or whatever decision or direction you want to go with your initial shot on the hole.

If that isn't strategy, then I'm a Tuskeegee Airman.......

[Phil Benedict]

Tommy,

I probably have put myself in the position of defending the indefensible since I didn't see enough of the 4th hole to fully grasp its strategic merit.  However, at the risk of digging myself into a deeper hole, I'll make a couple of comments from what I did actually see:

1) Yes Phil did beat Tiger by 3 strokes (cumulatively) on the hole but I don't think the architecture was the reason.  Phil made 3 yesterday from the same bunker Tiger made 6 on Friday.  Phil actually hit an indifferent bunker shot but made a great putt, while Tiger hit one of the worst shots I have ever seen him hit, leaving his first bunker shot in the lip of the same bunker.  It wasn't the architecture that caused the scoring difference, it was Tiger's inexplicable failure to execute a routine shot.

2) Everyone I saw play 4 went for the green, leading me to conclude that there was no real decision as far as the tee shot is concerned - the hole appeared to dictate one strategy only.  On the 17th at Oakmont (where I saw a lot of play), some guys went for it and some guys laid up.  That hole seemed to offer more choice at the tee.  

3) I probably shouldn't have mentioned Riviera's 10th since I don't know that much about it other than the fact that it's an incredibly narrow target.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Phil,
I appreciate the honest answers!

The answer to the question, at least for me, and maybe Lynn or Michael Robin can chime in is the cant or slant of the green falling away left and the crown that goes with it. It's just a very strong defense that has you thinking negative thoughts when you walk away from it with a par. You feel like you either blew it or were ripped-off. That's what this kind of a hole does to you, this short thing that looks so defenseless. It's like Jim Murray once accurately described it, “This is a shameless little harlot that just sits at the end of the bar in mesh stockings and a mini-skirt just waiting for you.".... (as quoted by Nick Faldo)

Or for that matter....

Q.    Charles, during the ride past on the playoff on the tenth hole, Jim Nantz and Nick Faldo were talking about world ten what's the history with that whole number?

CHARLES HOWELL III:  We've had a love/hate relationship, I think it's one of the greatest par4's that we play and it was different this year, and I think you saw more guys go at that green off the tee because the green was so hard.  In the years passed here, that green has been so soft with all of the rain you can lay the ball up to the left and hit a wedge in there and hold it.  I saw a lot of great wedge shots this week land on the green and end up in the bunker.  With the greens being as firm as it was, around the green, as to why we don't have more, I don't know.  Because that one there is every bit as nerve-racking and exciting as we need.

Q.    Where are you trying to play it on 10 when you are playing?

CHARLES HOWELL III:  Anything.  Anything at this front edge of the green or just left of it and pinhigh.  So the reason that hole is so good is that the golf ball is going so far now that a driver actually gets past that and you end up chipping back this way.   So Phil hit a 3wood, I hit 3wood, we've got to hit those 3woods pretty darn good to carry that last bunker to left.  So it's really hard to get that ball pinhigh left.  Like I said with that green firm, that front right bunker is no bargain.  

So, I guess it comes to this, looking at it on TV, especially since it's a young hole--just a baby--so it probably needs to mature, but holes like the 4th need to be a part of GREAT Golf Architecture. I obviously disagree, even with Brad Klein to some extent that it did have some affect on the outcome. Regardless of just how good he is as a golfer, Tiger Woods is still a human with the same sort of emotions, mental lapses and quirks as all of us. I guess I'm a little more positive in thinking that he was not completely focusing on that shot that nipped the lip and came back down. Could this have been intimidation by the nasty looking bunker which is a style and look I favor? (with-in reason) Could it have been a lapse in judgement by the world's greatest golfer?

Three strokes is three strokes as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not even a numbers man!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()