[Tom_Doak]

Tom...it seems with time the course is morphing into a mini version of what happened to Pine Hurst #2. Its diminishing greens and increased internal slopes due to sand splash has made major changes in just the course of my life time.

I remember considering #14 an eagle opportunity whenever I played it, which was frequently 35 years ago, and I made a few....blew it up the right side and putted left.
The green is so much smaller now and the kick slope behind the left green side bunker is so much stronger that obviously nothing holds there now and the hole has become a true three shotter.

So many holes have changed.

Paul C:

Thanks for your insights.  So many people here are either "pro Pebble" or "anti Pebble" and have a hard time seeing the details.

For me, the hole that's changed the most since I played the course a lot is #7.  I was watching with Brian Schneider yesterday and he asked me why that hole was so famous and I told him that when I got to know it in the 70's, the green was only 20-25 feet across and you had to hit the straightest of shots to hit it.  Of course, it was not big enough and was too bumpy for all that $500 play so Mr. Nicklaus enlarged the green back toward what it used to be ... but to me it is just not the same hole anymore.  I didn't see any fear there at all this week.

I'm sure glad they have consulting architects keeping a close eye on the course, but it would be better if they had someone like you who was more concerned in preserving the nature of the course instead of adding bunkers.

[TEPaul]

Jim Hoak:

I think you made an excellent observation there----eg the best strategy for birdie on #14 in the Open was to get the second shot into that huge front bunker somehow. As soon as the commentators mentioned that looked like Woods' strategy on Sunday the very same thing occured to me too. Those guys are all great bunker players and the greenside bunkers at PB this week were relatively easy to recover from. It looks from his comments like Love had the same idea in mind even though his strategy may not have been to try to get the ball into that bunker in two but just to get it around the green in two rather than have it come off the green in three (something of Hogan's strategy on Oakmont's #1 and #10 in his 1950s US Open victory).

It does seem sort of architecturally or philosophically counter-intuitive to ideally play for a greenside bunker on a par 5 in two but what the hell if that's the best way to do it successfully then just DO IT! As we all can see there is virtually no physical way to get a ball in two shots up on that really small putting level on the left on #14!

PS:
For its overall greenspace size #14 may have more unpinnable space than any green I've ever seen and the additionally interesting factor is all its space to the right and front only serves to take the ball away from the pinnable space and frankly right off the front of the green.

The Open will return to PB in 2019 and it will be interesting to see what they do with that green for that Open (as well as #17). I hope they leave it alone even though it just occured to me it may not be a bad idea to putt a gentle counter-roll on the back right side of the pinnable space on the left so approaches from from the fairway or recoveries from behind and left may have a bit more of a chance of holding up there.

[John Moore II]

SOFTEN THE GREENS AND NONE OF THIS WOULD BE AN ISSUE!!!!!!!

Earth to John, it's the US Open.  Maybe you missed the memo?

It was a great tournament.

It was great on Saturday. Sunday was like watching a 6 hour car wreck. Boring as hell, unless you like watching guys beat it all over the place. I was not impressed with Sunday's round. And yeah, it was the US Open for sure, it was the US Open played on a course that is too short to be difficult for those players without weather or tricked up greens. USGA didn't get the weather, so they had to screw around with the greens to get them like pool tables. And that's when it got out of control. That final round sucked.

[Wayne_Kozun]

For me, the hole that's changed the most since I played the course a lot is #7.  I was watching with Brian Schneider yesterday and he asked me why that hole was so famous and I told him that when I got to know it in the 70's, the green was only 20-25 feet across and you had to hit the straightest of shots to hit it.  Of course, it was not big enough and was too bumpy for all that $500 play so Mr. Nicklaus enlarged the green back toward what it used to be ... but to me it is just not the same hole anymore.  I didn't see any fear there at all this week.

Wasn't the benign wind this weekend a big part of this?

By the way here is a screenshot of the 7th green taken from the 1963 Shell's WWOG match between Snead and Nicklaus

[Sean Leary]

For me, the hole that's changed the most since I played the course a lot is #7.  I was watching with Brian Schneider yesterday and he asked me why that hole was so famous and I told him that when I got to know it in the 70's, the green was only 20-25 feet across and you had to hit the straightest of shots to hit it.  Of course, it was not big enough and was too bumpy for all that $500 play so Mr. Nicklaus enlarged the green back toward what it used to be ... but to me it is just not the same hole anymore.  I didn't see any fear there at all this week.

Wasn't the benign wind this weekend a big part of this?

By the way here is a screenshot of the 7th green taken from the 1963 Shell's WWOG match between Snead and Nicklaus

Wow. The shape reminds me a little of 15 at CPC....

[JR Potts]

SOFTEN THE GREENS AND NONE OF THIS WOULD BE AN ISSUE!!!!!!!

Earth to John, it's the US Open.  Maybe you missed the memo?

It was a great tournament.

It was great on Saturday. Sunday was like watching a 6 hour car wreck. Boring as hell, unless you like watching guys beat it all over the place. I was not impressed with Sunday's round. And yeah, it was the US Open for sure, it was the US Open played on a course that is too short to be difficult for those players without weather or tricked up greens. USGA didn't get the weather, so they had to screw around with the greens to get them like pool tables. And that's when it got out of control. That final round sucked.

Jordan - I love you like the step-brother I never knew I had but got to know through facebook....but John is right.  Yesterday sucked.

[paul cowley]

Tom...it seems with time the course is morphing into a mini version of what happened to Pine Hurst #2. Its diminishing greens and increased internal slopes due to sand splash has made major changes in just the course of my life time.

I remember considering #14 an eagle opportunity whenever I played it, which was frequently 35 years ago, and I made a few....blew it up the right side and putted left.
The green is so much smaller now and the kick slope behind the left green side bunker is so much stronger that obviously nothing holds there now and the hole has become a true three shotter.

So many holes have changed.

Paul C:

Thanks for your insights.  So many people here are either "pro Pebble" or "anti Pebble" and have a hard time seeing the details.

For me, the hole that's changed the most since I played the course a lot is #7.  I was watching with Brian Schneider yesterday and he asked me why that hole was so famous and I told him that when I got to know it in the 70's, the green was only 20-25 feet across and you had to hit the straightest of shots to hit it.  Of course, it was not big enough and was too bumpy for all that $500 play so Mr. Nicklaus enlarged the green back toward what it used to be ... but to me it is just not the same hole anymore.  I didn't see any fear there at all this week.

I'm sure glad they have consulting architects keeping a close eye on the course, but it would be better if they had someone like you who was more concerned in preserving the nature of the course instead of adding bunkers.

thanks Tom....I didn't realize they had enlarged #7.

What's also interesting is that when I was there and just a week or so prior to the Crosby....we came to work and go right by 14 green and discover that a jeep had spun a large and deep donut throughout the green. Grass was everywhere and there was a concern if it would be playable for the upcoming tournament. As head of special projects I cut some turf from the nursery and I spent 2 days with a fillet knife piecing the green back together. Obviously the event went on, but a discerning viewer could see the track marks on TV as the nursery turf was a slightly lighter color!

My point is that the green was once large enough to accommodate a spinning jeep. I'm not sure now if it could hold an ATV.

[Dave_Miller]

Why all the hate for Pebble?

The bunkers are fantastic, all the time on here people complain about how fairways need to be mowed into bunkers to make them more in play yet once it finally happens nobody is happy and it is out of place.  The bunkers and mowing patters in general are awesome and should be commended; I would love to see mowing patters like this in future US Opens.

I also like the diversity that Pebble has been set up for.  Obviously you can only mix up a course so much for a US Open but the fourth playing 281 yesterday, the fifth at under 150 on Thursday, the seventh at under 100 yesterday, and some other changes in tee boxes has made for some fun with exceptional shots out there to be had (ie Dustin Johnson's eagle on 4 yesterday).  Awesome.

The low scores show that the USGA is doing a great job of making things interesting.  Yet, as only three players are under par, it also goes to show that the USGA hasn't made this a cakewalk either.  Pebble proves that length isn't needed for difficulty.  This has been a great US Open to watch and I can't wait to watch the finale today. Kudos to the USGA and shame on the gca'ers doing everything they can to nitpick at Pebble.

Jordan
I am with you.  I was at Pebble this  past week for the Open and the place was great.
Best,
Dave

[Kenny Baer]

Hate to say but yesterday sucked because of who won (at least in my opinion) and who finished 2nd; if Tiger, Phil, or Ernie played even marginally better we would be talking about what an epic Open it was.  They screwed up because they just played bad; all three of them could have easily shaved 3-4 strokes off of their scores.  DL3 Shot even par and should have at least done 1 better; his tee ball on 17 was just awful.  Kuchar shot 68; he finished less than 1hr before the leaders; the course didn't change that much in that short amount of time.  A good number was out there unfortunately the big guns did not play well.  I can give you example after example of shots Tiger, Ernie, and Phil hit that had nothing to do with the course and everything to do with execution.  The only bad hole was #17; no player had the guts to go at the stick on #7; #14 it seemed as if everyone minus Tiger had the wrong strategy; the 3rd at 14 from 100 yds and under could have been hit close, it was not "unfair".

The course has everything to do with who wins and nothing to do with who wins, meaning that the course is completely indiscriminate in regards to the champion and the worthiness of the course has nothing to do with who wins a professional tournament there.

[Kenny Baer]

John,

If they softened the greens the winner would be 10-12 under par; (I'm not saying that is bad) The f&f was the courses defense; those guys would be taking target practice if those greens were rolling 10; that is what would have made it silly.  Just think about the difference on holes like 9&10 if Tiger is able to stop his shot where it lands with his SW for his 2nd shot on 10 then it is not a US Open it is the Pro Am. 

All they had to do was move the tee up on 17 and the course would have been perfect.

[Anthony Gray]

  Fast and firm for players that can't spin the ball is tuff on those small greens and small openings for the bounce in. Still alot of fun.

  Anthony

[John Moore II]

John,

If they softened the greens the winner would be 10-12 under par; (I'm not saying that is bad) The f&f was the courses defense; those guys would be taking target practice if those greens were rolling 10; that is what would have made it silly.  Just think about the difference on holes like 9&10 if Tiger is able to stop his shot where it lands with his SW for his 2nd shot on 10 then it is not a US Open it is the Pro Am. 

All they had to do was move the tee up on 17 and the course would have been perfect.

You could have done one or the other, slower greens or slightly softer greens. Keep the greens at 13 but make them slightly softer. Or make them roll 10 and keep them hard. But the combination is excessive.

And had Tiger shot 66 to win and they had been battling down the stretch maybe it would have been epic. Or if Phil had gone low, or Ernie. But seeing guys win because they beat it around is just not fun. Especially with a huge anti-climax at 17. That course was just too stupidly difficult for yesterday to have any fun at all.

[John Mayhugh]

Pebble looked great to me. 

Perfect?  No, but on balance I thought the setup was fine.  Sure it was difficult, but the conditions required as much shotmaking (mental as well as physical skill) as I've seen in recent tournament setups. 

[John Moore II]

Pebble looked great to me. 

Perfect?  No, but on balance I thought the setup was fine.  Sure it was difficult, but the conditions required as much shotmaking (mental as well as physical skill) as I've seen in recent tournament setups. 

Please, please tell me the shot making required to get a ball close on 7, 14 and 17. If only 7 out of 70 of the world best players hit the green on 17, that says its not a matter of shot making, but a matter of dumb luck. Yesterday didn't require shot making, it required playing as conservative as possible and hoping you got a good break.

[Bill_Yates]

The fact that everyone is using the term "IF," is reason enough to consider that what we just witnessed was indeed a great Open.  Far better than someone lapping the field, don't you think?

[John Mayhugh]

Please, please tell me the shot making required to get a ball close on 7, 14 and 17.

Please, please tell me where you get the requirement that players be able to get the ball close to every hole location.

[Kevin Pallier]

I thought it was a great tournament - and it was nice to see them run a few shots into holes at times.

Only #14 and #17 looked "borderline" for mine with their setups.

[BVince]

I think that if Pebble was private, then it would be rated the best course in the America and maybe the world.

[Link Walsh]

I really liked the tough nature of the approach to 14.  Think about it this way.  What's wrong with the pros having to face a wedge shot and actually have a little fear and doubt in their minds?  It makes them seem more like us- more human.  Now the ping pong nature of some of their pitches was a little too much, but most of those guys could have avoided that if they took their medicine and hit away from the hole on their first chip. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()