Mike Davis Embraces Possible Changes to Pebble Beach

[Adam Clayman]

Terry. Can you remember the 10th hole in 04' @ Shinney? That hole illustrated to me that these guys may be good but sometimes they don't figure the best way to play a difficult situiation. In the case in 04 they were so enamoured with hitting it long, leaving themselves a very delicate shot, many failed to prove they were the best in the world. Maybe that's why I don't give them slack here. Those who were in the wrong place put too much pressure on themselves by leaving a very delicate shot. 1200 sq/ft doesn't seem unreasonable to me with a sand wedge in their hands. But, for someone like Ryan Moore, from 205, it's not a viable option. So why bitch and moan about it.   

[Carl Nichols]

Carl, You mean other than I detailed above? Which BTW is not what I would do, but feel it's what Mike Davis could've done to lower the criticisms hurled his way.

If I had my druthers I would have given these guys more width, using short grass as a hazard, like on #6, bringing the ocean back into play off the drive . But, especially on 14. That left side when completely shaved could've made for some even bigger train wrecks, completely proportional to how poorly a shot that was hit. Also, I certainly would've given them more fairway on 11, to the left, so they could play the proper angle. But also pay the price for hitting it too far left.

In the end, no matter how it's set up, it's set up the same for every player. So, fairness has nothing to do with it. Bad shots are penalized, as are poor decisions. That's how it should be. There were quite a few examples where bunkers were the smart play, and, even the smarter miss. To me, that's a bit of a pity, reflective of a mindset likely never to be relinquished by the usga. There was even one example where the local caddie knew the best spot, in the rough, behind 14 green where the up and down was easiest. Pebble's greatness is reflected in that story due to how many secrets she holds. Secrets being the idiosyncratic nature, in spots, of how, and where, to play each shot, to ease the next. Whatever I did, I wouldn't be able to take those away from the golf course. But if the wind had blown, at all, it would've been a real tests of these guys heads, not just their skill.

Adam:
Thanks for the response.  I personally would've preferred a Sunday setup that allowed for at least a few more birdies and thus for someone to make a charge -- not because that would've been "fairer," but because it would've been more interesting and exciting.  I've never played Pebble (I have walked it), and I have no greenskeeping experience, so I'm just guessing about how one would make that happen.  But what about slightly wetter and slower greens, which presumably would've resulted in somewhat more receptive and smoother putting surfaces.  I'm not talking about greens that let them throw darts, just ones that increase somewhat the possibility of making putts.

As for 14, I would leave it alone -- it's unique and testing, and what's wrong with that?

[Terry Lavin]

Terry. Can you remember the 10th hole in 04' @ Shinney? That hole illustrated to me that these guys may be good but sometimes they don't figure the best way to play a difficult situiation. In the case in 04 they were so enamoured with hitting it long, leaving themselves a very delicate shot, many failed to prove they were the best in the world. Maybe that's why I don't give them slack here. Those who were in the wrong place put too much pressure on themselves by leaving a very delicate shot. 1200 sq/ft doesn't seem unreasonable to me with a sand wedge in their hands. But, for someone like Ryan Moore, from 205, it's not a viable option. So why bitch and moan about it.   

Adam,

Sorry, can't remember the 10th at Shinney in '04, but I do remember Paul Goydos in the '10 AT&T.  He had 20 yards or so.  He was just in front of the bunker.  He hit a lob wedge that carried the bunker, hit the first cut and rolled slowly to the hole.  Then past the hole, turned left and went down the shaved bank.  After that, he played some ping pong and wound up with an 8 or a 9.  The only reason he didn't get a par is that he didn't hit an ABSOLUTELY PERFECT SHOT WITH NO MARGIN OF ERROR FROM 20 YARDS FROM THE HOLE.  I'm sure we'll continue to agree to disagree, but that to me is the apogee of golf absurdity and I'll bet $20 bucks that they'll change the green to decrease the frequency of such abject silliness on this quirky green.

[Adam Clayman]

Terry. We disagree he needed to hit a perfect shot. He did hit the wrong spot, on the down slope on the back side of the bunker. If he'd hit either at the hole or past with some spin that would've been the perfect shot and he'd have held the green. Is it abject or subjective silliness?

 

[Brent Hutto]

In the article, Geoff says Jack called Pebble the world's most strategic course.  Do (or did) you guys agree with that? 

I would take "most strategic" in that context as meaning something like "finest line between when to go for it and when to play safe" in which case I tend to agree with the comment. That is something like what most very accomplished golfers in my experience tend to mean when they discuss "strategy".

The quoted comment makes no sense at all in terms of playing angles on one shot to set up angles on the next in the sense many people on this forum use it. That requires more fairway width than seems to be available at Pebble. The word means something different and more technical when we say it than when most Tour level players say it.

[Garland Bayley]

Terry. Can you remember the 10th hole in 04' @ Shinney? That hole illustrated to me that these guys may be good but sometimes they don't figure the best way to play a difficult situiation. In the case in 04 they were so enamoured with hitting it long, leaving themselves a very delicate shot, many failed to prove they were the best in the world. Maybe that's why I don't give them slack here. Those who were in the wrong place put too much pressure on themselves by leaving a very delicate shot. 1200 sq/ft doesn't seem unreasonable to me with a sand wedge in their hands. But, for someone like Ryan Moore, from 205, it's not a viable option. So why bitch and moan about it.   

Adam,

Sorry, can't remember the 10th at Shinney in '04, but I do remember Paul Goydos in the '10 AT&T.  He had 20 yards or so.  He was just in front of the bunker.  He hit a lob wedge that carried the bunker, hit the first cut and rolled slowly to the hole.  Then past the hole, turned left and went down the shaved bank.  After that, he played some ping pong and wound up with an 8 or a 9.  The only reason he didn't get a par is that he didn't hit an ABSOLUTELY PERFECT SHOT WITH NO MARGIN OF ERROR FROM 20 YARDS FROM THE HOLE.  I'm sure we'll continue to agree to disagree, but that to me is the apogee of golf absurdity and I'll bet $20 bucks that they'll change the green to decrease the frequency of such abject silliness on this quirky green.

So what is the problem. The high handicapper faces such shots all the time. 20 yards away, and we don't have the shot necessary to keep the next one from being 20 yards away. Man up you low handicappers! Quit your bellyaching!

[Sean Leary]

Terry. We disagree he needed to hit a perfect shot. He did hit the wrong spot, on the down slope on the back side of the bunker. If he'd hit either at the hole or past with some spin that would've been the perfect shot and he'd have held the green. Is it abject or subjective silliness?

 

Adam,

Is that downslope original or was it built up over time due to sand from the bunker? Just curious..

[Tom_Doak]

Personally, I thought the bunker shot Mickelson faced on Saturday ... over a false half of green to a 30-foot sliver of green with a steep shaved bank beyond ... was the silliest looking shot I've seen since I had the same sort of shot (over water) on the famous island green at Stone Harbor years ago.

Pebble and Stone Harbor ... there's a comparison I never thought I would have to make.

I will have to go and read Geoff's article.  I don't understand how Mike Davis could be complaining about the shot to #17, since it was entirely in his power to have them play it shorter if he thought it was too severe.

[Phil Benedict]

  I don't understand how Mike Davis could be complaining about the shot to #17, since it was entirely in his power to have them play it shorter if he thought it was too severe.

That occurred to me as well.  Why didn't they play it from the tees they use for the AT&T?  Sheer idiocy not too.  My guess is this would have contradicted the 'history' of the hole in the Open.  Jack's one-iron, Watson 2-iron and chip.  Playing it short might seem like a betrayal of this history.

[Matt_Ward]

The 17th at PB reminded me of the early quote from JN after playing TPC / Sawgrass -- "I'm not very good at landing a 5-iron on the roof of a car."

With a tight pin left and played from 218 yards -- PB's 17th was out of control. Like I said before -- akin to landing a 747 on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

[Adam Clayman]

Sean, Sorry can't answer that. I suspect its possibly a combonation. In my years there I don't ever recall seeing anyone in that bunker. But I would always advise playing away from the pin, well right. The putt from down there is easier that one thinks.
 

[David_Tepper]

"I'm not very good at landing a 5-iron on the roof of a car."

Matt W. -

Thanks for posting that Nicklaus quote. There seems to be this myth around the Nicklaus never whined or complained about course conditions, but he did his fair share. When it came to US Open set-ups, Ben Hogan did more than his fair share!

DT   

[JWinick]

I liked 14 and am generally ok with a wild green on a Par 5.   However, 17 was a joke.   You can't have a Par 3 in which you can't hold the green!   I'm not sure what the solution is, but they should have at least played it as a shorter hole 180-190 comes to mind.   

[Adam Clayman]

Jwinick. You do realize 185 is the distance the resort guests play the hole? Why shouldn't the penultimate hole be of a superior shot test? Can't hold the green is a misnomer. 7 did so on Sunday and more did so on Thursday. What that tells me is that the end of story is that a really good pilot can land a 747 on an air craft carrier.

[Phil_the_Author]

"What that tells me is that the end of story is that a really good pilot can land a 747 on an air craft carrier."

That might be true but I most certainly will not be on board...

[John Moore II]

"What that tells me is that the end of story is that a really good pilot can land a 747 on an air craft carrier."

That might be true but I most certainly will not be on board...

Yeah, sure he can land it, but not without tearing the wing off. Thats the story about 17. Sure, it can be done, but it takes more luck to survive it than it does skill. Those 7 that hit the 17th green on Sunday got lucky. Having to land the ball in the rough to hold the green is stupid.

[Jim Nugent]

Jwinick. You do realize 185 is the distance the resort guests play the hole? Why shouldn't the penultimate hole be of a superior shot test? Can't hold the green is a misnomer. 7 did so on Sunday and more did so on Thursday. What that tells me is that the end of story is that a really good pilot can land a 747 on an air craft carrier.

It says to me the green is nearly impossible to hit.  Less than 10% of the world's best players did so.  And from what I've read, at least a few of the successful ones, did so by landing the ball in the rough, and hoping/praying the ball would run up on the green and stay there.

This does not mean to me the hole is unfair.  The USGA simply changed the measuring stick for this hole:  par became more like birdie, bogey like par.  It does raise the question, what do we expect of golf courses and golf?  Should we have holes that are nearly impossible to hit in regulation?  Even par 3s?     

[Adam Clayman]

The expectation of "regulation" and "two putting" has water downed not only the golf courses we play, but it has taken the sport and turned into a game. Mind, set, match.

I'd be curious to find out if those who thought Shinnecock in 04' was exciting golf, are the same individuals who have no problem with this years results? Conversely, those who are bashing the set up at Pebble, consider the 04' open a debacle?

Obviously, I vote the former.

[Sean Leary]

Adam,

Number 7 in 04 was a debacle. Number 10 was not.

Was 18 green in 98 a debacle? One could argue that a good pilot would have been able to make any putt on that green.

[Adam Clayman]

Sean, #7, the Redan, was played from the wrong angle, and was another example of how figuring out the best way to play a difficult situation is foreign to many of today's best players, because many were able to negotiate it. #10 was another example where these elite players could not figure out the prudent way to answer the question being posed.

These expectations are what gets me. Too often those who relish difficulty, on a day in day out basis, around here, are the one's doing the "unfair" cry the loudest.

Apparently there's a fine line between testing and too testing. In my understanding of the finer points, the subjectivity of where that fine lines resides, is moot. Because the lowest score still wins the tournament and the scorecard does not say 'how'.

[Sean Leary]

Adam,

What about 18 green at Olympic? Where does that fall?

[Mark_Fine]

The issue with #14 and #17 sadly comes down to perceived fairness and setup.  On #14, the USGA did not have to shave the left side of the green so balls ran all the way down into heavy rough.  You don't rebuild the green because of poor setup.  The reason #17 was an issue was everyone's perception of fairness.  If the hole was 290 yards and called a par four, would it be fair?  I think so.  Why is it all of a sudden unfair at 210 yards and a par three?  Maybe they should have called it a 210 yard par four and no one in the field would have compained a bit. 

I sure hope Pebble Beach does not listen to the USGA about changing a course for a tournament that will be played there once every 10 years!!  I hope those in power at Merion are listening as well. 
Mark

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

You're right -- at 290 yards the issue is not present -- that's because a player can hit and hold a SW or Lob from 50-60 yards more effectively than trying to put the brakses on a 3 or 4-iron shot which is typical.

Keep in mind the club pattern that is called upon. A par-3 hole should provide an opportunity for the well-played shot to hit and stay near the target when executed flawlessly - the 17th at PB, when played to a tight far left position at 218 yards doesn't do that. It's no different than when the USGA plays the 16th at Oakmont at 230+ yards and has a tight right pin placement over the bunker there.

In neither case does a scoring situation present itself when superior execution occurs.

I would hope too that the folks at Merion were watching - I am just concerned that the USGA still gets to wrapped up into the "let's save par at all costs" mentality. Let the boys plays and show the skills -- not the luck.

[Adam Clayman]

Sean, I suppose it also falls under the game mind, also. It's issue being the greens speeds being too fast for the existing architecture.
These controversial situation only prove that golf is the greatest sport. So many variables, factors, mindsets, perceptions and outcomes, prove that even the best of the best, can't conquer all aspects, all of the time. And isn't that why , when someone does play a beautiful round of golf, it should be heralded as a triumph of the individual, versus some flaw in the difficulty of the venue.

[Pete Lavallee]

Adam,

I don't understand your argument about 17. On the one hand you're saying several people held the green; so it's not an impossible shot. Yet on the other hand you're saying lowest score wins so there is no shame in playing for a 4. I think that when you look at the statistics, only those who hit the 3' wide strip of fringe actually held the green; even your game mind must think that is a little silly. In the long run we can watch from tv and say: if only they would have laid up or played for the 4. But when you are standing on the tee at 218 yards and don't have the perspective of what has occurred before you, I doubt even Behr himself wouldn't give it a rip.

My opinion is that no one designed the hole this way, it just evolved, probably out of sheer laziness. Egan or Neville never anticpated this and I think both would clamor for a green expansion.