[ChipOat]

The recent issue of Golf World included an item that the powers at PB were moving a Cypress tree from #1 to replace the greenside tree on #18 that had (thankfully) died.

Now, once again, there will be a "bunker in the sky" that will block a shot to the green from the right 1/3 of the fairway.

I do not like that. I do not, I do not, I do not.

[redanman]

A cypress to replace a pine?  

Never been a fan of that tree, always seemed kind of silly to me.  2-0 for no tree so far.  

[A_Clay_Man]

I don't understand why you don't like a tree that was always there and was an integral part of whats known as the best finisher in the game.

Also,

Where else would they hang the fixture that illumunates the green for all eyes to ogle while they dine on their lobsters at Stillwaters?

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Assuming Adam's is a yes (no?) I'll make it 3-1, as I've stated earlier.  Tree bad.

[redanman]

(A)n integral part of what's known as the best finisher in the game

Not in my universe, not even close.  

Although, maybe now with a cypress tree, it becomes an integral part of the "California Coastal Effect", or maybe I should change that to "Affect" (sic)   lol

[ChipOat]

a_clay_man:

Sorry, Adam.  I know I've harangued on this in at least 2 prior threads, but I don't believe trees SHOULD be a factor from the fairway.  Whether they grow out over time from the side (e.g. Southern Hills/Medinah) or are planted intentionally (e.g. PB #18) is not a factor to me.

I say: shape the green and its surrounds to make the 3rd shot from the "safe" right side more of a challenge - that's great strategic architecture.  Even plant a tree that is a factor from the right rough.  But trees blocking shots from the fairway??  Not for me, thanks.

[Tim Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

You have given your views earlier and I supported them.

This isn't a vote thing.  It should be a discussion about strategy and risk vs reward on Pebble's 18th.

I'm not sold on the tree thing, but I wonder how many would support doing nothing (as opposed to your earlier proposal)?

[guest]

This isn't a vote thing.  

Then what is it?
Do you like it or not?  Yes?  No?

[JakaB]

For the 98% of the American golfing public that doesn't get to play a top 500 golf course on a regular basis a properly maintained tree is most likely the most important architectural feature on the course.  To brush off trees as needless items to be removed willy nilly is a both reckless and ignorant and the rant of pampered egotists.  If you don't like a trees location hit to the left, right, over or under it...if you feel lucky...hit through it.  Lay away from it....lay back from it...hit past it...gauge the wind from the movement of its branches...rest in its shade...piss on it.   As I have said before...A great tree will make a bad hole good.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

My point of view, previous and current, was pretty well summarized by Chip Oat:

"I say: shape the green and its surrounds to make the 3rd shot from the "safe" right side more of a challenge - that's great strategic architecture."

In terms of "do nothing" vs. "plant the tree" I'd vote for "do nothing."  That tree did and will do nothing for the hole except make a potentially great hole a perpetual under-achiever.

[JakaB]

Rich,

Who, what, or when has the 18th at Pebble underachieved...its a great championship finisher...a great resort hole....it has created memories for players and spectators alike.   For one who proclaims this a game...I find your logic gamie.

[TEPaul]

I don't have to really say I like the tree but I'd vote for it and I'll also supply my analysis of why I'd vote for it.

We can call the tree a "bunker in the sky" but what does that mean exactly?--that's a quaint old phrase that emanated once from the linksland where there never were trees in the first place. There always were trees on the Monterey Peninsula.

Now for the strategies the tree creates. It's most definitely in the player's mind requiring him to produce a helluva shot in two to avoid it, bringing the dangerous left side more into play too, if electing to go at the green in two.

For those NOT going at the green in two the tree probably has much more strategic meaning bringing the necessity of playing accurately down the far more dangerous left side both direction-wise and distance-wise.

And for those who elect not to get too aggressive with the second shot layup to the left side DISTANCE-WISE might choose to play down the much safer rightside of the hole on the second shot but logically also having to layup much farther back, and all because of that tree!!

In a real quantitative sense and probably in a qualitiative sense of available options that tree is elemental!

Now suppose the tree was not there as it wasn't last year. Clearly that makes the hole far more accessible to finding the green in two shots and the quantity of players trying that compared to the way they used to play the hole proved the point!

So it really involves what the club and course wants to try to induce the players to do or not, and the tree there vs not there is elemental in that.

Without the tree many of you were talking about how to redesign the entire green and green-end of Pebble's #18 to make it play optimally without the tree. Is that really a good thing to get into? It might just be better to replace the tree that was there for so long with another tree and let the hole play generally as it always has.

But in fairness, I can certainly see the validity of tempting tour pros to go at that green in two! Now we certainly know they have the distance to do it! If replacing that tree with another one almost completely shuts down the temptation for the tour pros of going at that green in two, than certainly the strategic use of that tree should be reanalyzed.

Does that seem like a fair and balanced analysis of the tree vs no tree?

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

JakaB, old pajo

You could build a roulette wheel out over the Pacific which would catch balls that were overcooked and then spin around madly eventually chucking the ball out in a random direction.  Sometimes it would land on the green, sometimes in the Ocean, sometimes back on the fairway and sometimes in the middle of some trophy wife's pina colada.  That would be a great game, but it wouldn't be golf.

PS--this is all fun, but if Clint wants his tree he's gonna get his tree and I ain't going to argue with him--he might spit a sunflower seed in my face!

[ChrisB (Guest)]

Rich,
Your argument sounds eeriely similar to the argument some people use to advocate as-flat-as-possible fairways and greens in the interest of minimizing "bad" bounces and keeping things as "fair" as possible.

Would you remove the mound in front of the green at #4 at St. Andrews?  That can certainly spit balls in any direction if you flirt with it.

[ChrisB (Guest)]

Rich,
Your argument sounds eeriely similar to the argument some people use to advocate as-flat-as-possible fairways and greens in the interest of minimizing "bad" bounces and keeping things as "fair" as possible.

Would you remove the mound in front of the green at #4 at St. Andrews?  That can certainly spit balls in any direction if you flirt with it.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Chris/shivas

I just happen to think that 18 at PB would be a much better hole without the tree, particularly if you did something creative with the greensite (i.e. make it "redanish" angled towards the sea).  I don't think that 3-wood, 4-iron-to-avoid-the-tree, wedge is a great finishing hole.  Others disagree.

Just because something "is" does not mean it should be, or that it cannot or should be changed, but I learned long ago to NEVER try to have a serious conversation about the Old Course on this site............

[Matt_Cohn]

I've never played Pebble, but unless we're going to dig up the 18th green and rebuild it with a copy of #16 green at Pebble (or #16 at Augusta), then I'm all for the tree.

People use this term "bunker in the sky" like bunkers are bad. I don't understand. And they're not going to dig up the 18th green at Pebble anytime soon - especially to build a new green, with no historical basis, that has the same right-to-left slope as several other greens on the back nine.

The point that trees shouldn't be a factor from the fairway - I don't necessarily agree. Just because the grass is mowed short, doesn't mean you're supposed to hit it there. There are a thousand great holes on this website alone where you can be in the fairway, but in a bad spot. This whole topic is about strategy anyway. Why is #18 at Pebble different?

The tree required (and will require again) good planning and good execution, and it made a great picture too. Again, I haven't played the course, but I don't understand why this is all so bad.

[ChipOat]

Although this didn't start out about mounds, it was raised on the thread so here goes:

Mounds on a hole that are designed for the ground game ought to be positioned such that they're avoidable by playing the previous shot(s) "correctly" (whatever that means for that hole).

Mounds that are unavoidable from either the fairway or almost all the fairway are (to me) the ground-game equivalent of stupid trees - I dislike them intensely.

As to the aerial game, mounds seem like bunkers and water hazards to me - if you don't want to be bothered by them then just hit over them.

[ChipOat]

Matt Cohn:

It's a preference thing:

I DO happen to believe that fairways and tee boxes "should" offer an unencumbered straight-line route from where the ball sits (or is teed) to where the architect wants you to hit it.  I believe that "working" the ball one direction or the other for optimum results is highly desirable but I don't think the "straight ball" should ever be blocked from those 2 places.  Hiding pins behind bunkers and water hazards is fine - hiding them behind trees doesn't sit well with me.

Others obviously disagree.  It appears the vote right now is only slightly in favor of "no tree" (but the polls are still open).

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

shivas

If there is only one viable strategic option (i.e. 3w-4iron-wedge) it is "strategy" but hardly anything that woul'd tax the brain of Niclaus or von Clausewitz.

Of course, you could always play the hole a la Moe Norman, i.e. wedge off the tee, 4-iron past the middle trees and then blast a 3-wood onto the green.........

[Tim Weiman]

Guest:

You may recall that not too long ago we had a lengthy thread on what to do about #18 at Pebble Beach.

At the time I expressed qualified support for Rich Goodale's idea of not replacing the tree but making some modifications to the green complex that would make getting up and down from the right side of the green more difficult.

I share the point of view Tom Paul expressed that the old tree influenced play significantly.  It put pressure on the placement of one's second shot.

I'm open to changes on the hole, but prefer something done to preserve the second shot challenge.  Maybe it's a tree, maybe a variant of Rich's idea.  I'm not sure.

I'd need a return trip to Carmel before casting any final vote.

[Rob Hallford]

Chipoat--

What if they let the rough pinch in so that no fairway shot was impeded by the tree?  Would that be more fair/strategic?  I tend to think no.  I'm more in the TEPaul camp here where I believe the tree accomplishes, albeit not-so-subtley, the point of making people think about where they put the ball on their 2nd shot.  JMHO.

Rich--

Didn't Jack reach it in 2 during the 2000 Open?  Just because it requires 2 heroic shots doesn't relegate it to a "3 wood, 4 iron, wedge."

indy

[TEPaul]

Chip Oat makes a small but very interesting and I think very valid point about that tree on Pebble's 18th greenend.

Chip says that hiding pins behind bunkers, mounds or water hazards is OK with him but hiding a pin behind a tree doesn't sit well with him.

I agree with that but that statement sure needs clarification, particularly on the subject of this particular hole.

The club and the architect should not place that replacement tree in such a postion that it completely blocks a shot (either in two or three) from every single place in the fairway of that hole. There should be some way of getting a ball right at that pin in either two or three even though that may take a very fine and high risk shot both to execute and also set up with the previous shot.

When I talk about what very fine and high risk actually means in regards to playability and the position of that tree, it means to me that it should not shut down the temptation of going right at that pin completely from somewhere on that fairway--even if that somewhere is high risk too! If you shut down the TEMPTATION of a risk/reward option completely or even mostly you just killed an option, a choice, and also an aspect of potential interest and hole quality.

I do vote for the tree replacement but not in such a way that the pin can't be gotten at from somewhere on the fairway in two or three. And basically if it can be placed in such a way that the pros really do have to skirt near the danger left for that optimal high risk/reward shot then that might be the best design set-up of all. That to me is what really good strategy is all about.

Really good strategy is never just the option or choice of the shot itself that becomes the moment of truth! It's also how well you've strung thoughts and shots together to just arrive at the chance to make that tempting high risk/reward shot. The best is always strinking together the choices and the execution of them from tee to pin.

But GeoffShac is right, TEMPTATION that really does TEMPT is the barometer of shot options, which are the barometers of strategies, and strategies are the barometer of interesting and quality holes and what all great ones have. The baseline of all of it is temptation, though--don't corrupt it and never destroy it!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

shiavas and Indy

You are right that the green is now in range, even for geezers.  My point is not that it is a bad golf hole with the tree, but that it could be a much better golf hole without the tree, particularly if the green was cleverly redesigned to induce more strategic options on the hole from the green all the way back to the tee.

[ChipOat]

Indy:

Your point is well taken for a fairway that might be "too" wide.  However, to narrow that particular fairway (tree or no tree) would, IMO, be inadvisable because:

1) It would elimnate the "bail out" shot to the right and force the second shot towards the water - i.e. make the hole play "one way only".  That's penal design - not strategic.

2) There's nothing wrong with that particular fairway's width - in fact, it seems about right.  If they moved the TREE about 10 yards to the right, then all would be well.

I'm with Rich Goodale.  Give me a skinny green angled from LF to RB that makes the approach from the "safe" right fairway fraught with peril and the approach from the "dangerous" left side less problematic.  Let the tree block out shots from the right ROUGH.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()