17th at Pebble--Ugliest Bunker in Championship Golf?

[Matt Day]

This picture may help, taken a week after the AT&T (2 years ago)

[Adam Clayman]

Wow! That is a big difference from ten years ago.

I wonder if team Faz tried to mimmick the old faux dunes with those high lines and flashed faces?

[Ronald Montesano]

We're comparing apples to oranges here.  Terhorst and I are saying it is ugly from the sky, while the three bears are fawning over it from the tee.  Now that I think of this, who cares?  It's probably a great bunker to play (like 10 at Augusta.)  Beauty and lack of are aesthetic and personal, so why are we arguing this?

[Eric_Terhorst]

Ronald,

It is interesting that the best thing its supporters have to say about this bunker is "you can't see it from the tee." 

You're right that "arguing" about the aesthetics of the bunker is fruitless.  I too like the hole for its "earth-hugging, sky-line architecture" and the history of the famous shots made there, so why bother?  The reason for my question was that the size and shape and fingering of the bunker caused me to wonder--what were they thinking, the people who put this thing here on one of the most famous golf courses in the world? 

Most visitors to Pebble, and apparently few here, could care less.   Carry on!

[Sam Maryland]

Have you all seen pics of the new bunker on the inside corner of #9 on the Black? 

[Kalen Braley]

No disrespect....

But I'll take the opinions of those who have played it and thier view of the bunker from the tee every day of the week over anyone who just looks at it from an aerial.  Last I checked, the former is how the hole is played and interfaced, not the latter.

Just an opinion.

[Tim Nugent]

I think the ground level photo shows all.  It doesn't matter diddly squat what anything in golf looks like from the air.  One of the biggest reasons why "Mailed-in" designs fail is because, as my father used to say, "you can't design from an airplane.  You have to be on the ground.  I can't tell you how many times the aesthics ofa hole drastrically changed just by cutting or filling less than a foot around bunkers. 

If one reviews the evolutiion of the bunkers at Peeble, it can be seen that they tend to evolve over time.  Who's to say how or why that particular bunker looks the way it does today?   Afterall, as the last piture shows, very little is visable.  I imagine that it was extended back toward the tee to allow for that vision - by depressing the foreground.  Also, being about 25 yards front to back, it visually brings the green closer to the tee than it really is.  Bear in mind, this is in reality 2 very small greens.  With all that is going on visually and with the wind, it an make choosing the proper club difficult - if you're trying for the  back-left pin.
My problem(s) with this hole is that most golfers play PB once - if they are lucky and have the coin.  With 2 dramically different pins, you may feel jipped if it is front right.  My other issue is, for such a prominate pace both physically and sequentually on the course, it is a rather bland hole.  It is flat, flat, flat.  At least the recent bunker redo has added some3-D and appears to have made a sliver of the back-left pin visable.  I rather like the line of the previous photo with #6/7 in the background.  Too bad that land is occupied.

[Jerry Kluger]

In looking at that bunker it appears that it is trying to create all types of recovery shots from the same hazard.  I really question how well that will work when the bunker is uniform in depth.  The wider portions will allow for a full swing, etc., but the narrow fingers can create a less than ideal situation with a restricted backswing or perhaps a greater likelihood of the ball embedding in the side of the bunker.  I have played courses with narrow bunkers but it looks to me like the fingers are narrower than what I have seen when the entire bunker is narrow.  The angle of the green, deep rough, and the probable winds make for a very challenging shot, and I wonder if it is really necessary to create such a difficult recovery shot. 

[Matt_Cohn]

What I don't understand is why the hole seems to purposefully stay away from the ocean when it could have been a cliffside green. Would it have been a blind cliff?

[Jim Johnson]

My question exactly (reply #21).

[Sean_A]

What I don't understand is why the hole seems to purposefully stay away from the ocean when it could have been a cliffside green. Would it have been a blind cliff?

Matt

I too wondered about this.  Seems like a perfect opportunity to use mother-nature.  Perhaps the edge is unstable.  Maybe there is a private beach down there.  Maybe the archie thought water comes into play enough.  Who knows, but the bunker is a sad replacement for the ocean.  As the hole is, I really like the shape of the green, but as usual, I would seriously consider filling in a few bunkers if not more.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

It is a very sharp drop off behind the green.  To the left there is the Beach Club, but you would need John Daly aiming there with a gale force following wind to even mildy scare the Members.  The King famously played off the rocks left and 30-40 feet below the grade of the hole during one of the Crosby's in the 1960's.  I don't think they allowing such swashbuckling these days......

The back bunkers shown in one of the photos mus be new, and are an abomination, IMHO.  As it was the 17th was a classic skyline green, and unless you really, really like eye-candy, you should cry doon the current incarnation.

[Adam Clayman]

Rich is once again correct. The evolved look of those back bunkers were barely visible. Pits would be an accurate description. The new version must try to emulate either the original faux dunes or the tillie waves found @ SFGC. The resemble nothing that I remember from the remainder.