Would you move the tee back on the seventeenth?

[Ran Morrissett]

If you were the czar of the course set-up, would you play the 17th at Oakmont at the 250y mark for all four days? Or tomorrow, would you move it back +/- 50y and make them hit in a wedge?

Personally, I would move it back (and maybe/maybe not move the 2nd tee up). Under pressure, a ticklish pitch shot is a FABULOUS way to expose raw nerves. The percentage of men who went for it a few years back wasn't nearly as high as this week. Is giving 80% plus of the field the option to have a go at the 17th undermining a bit of the hole's integrity (or at least some of its other playing virtues)?

The uphill tee shot isn't an easy lay-up and the golfer is left with a really tough pitch - I say let it play that way, at least one of the four days. A short par four doesn't have to be drivable to be great - I hope the USGA remembers that from time to time.

What say you? (I am assuming it was drivable today, though since I can't watch the telecast , I don't know that for a fact).

Cheers,

[Bill_McBride]

I would do 2 & 2 with driveable day 1 and 3.  I agree that will be a troublesome pitch tomorrow.  Who will be smart enough to lay up to 110?

[Dan Herrmann]

Move it back to the tips.   Dynamic setup is a good thing!

[Matthew Runde]

Because it's the 17th, sure, I'd move it back.  If it were the 18th, I wouldn't, so as not to increase the chances that the winner would already be in the clubhouse. (Thanks, Tom Doak.)

[Blair Mancini]

Absolutely.  I remember the last hole at Bethpage last year the guys couldn't fire at the pin because they all hit drivers and had about 50 yards in.  I agree, Ran, I think it'd be a great idea for tomorrow.

[Doug Siebert]

When the men were there a few years ago I remember how much trouble that layup on 17 seemed to be, and commented at the time that going for it appeared to me to be the better option for pretty much the entire field, save the real short knockers.  I don't know how 17's fairway setup this week compares to how it was for the men, but if it is anything like that in terms of narrowness and firmness I think at least the longer hitters amongst the women would be best served taking a poke at it from 300, as just about anywhere near the green at the very least no worse off than many the places the men were putting their layups.

When all options are worrisome, take the option that leaves you the shortest second shot!

[TEPaul]

I was not aware that #17 has been played at 250yd the first three rounds. And I don't recall if the 2nd has had its tees moved up enough where some women can actually try to drive it (as some men in '07 did). Is that even possible on #2 for the women? What tee would they use to do that and what's its yardage?

But what I would do is if the 2nd was moved up to drivable on any day I would put #17 back on that day, and when #2 wasn't driveable I would make #17 drivable.

My feeling is #17 should be the one drivable on the last round as it would certainly offer more possibilities for 11th hour drama as the 71st hole.

[Carl Nichols]

I haven't been paying attention to the tournament -- what are the scores like? And what if anything do they say about how LPGA players would've scored at Pebble a few weeks ago?

[John Moore II]

Yes, I would move the tee on 17 back. And I'd move the tees back on the other 17 holes as well. They said on the event telecast that the USGA moved the tees up on like 6 holes today. I think thats foolish. I didn't see them move 6 tees up at the men's open in 2007. I say make the course 'fighting-Mike-Tyson' difficult.

[Ben Sims]

In my one play, I hit my drive in the right side of the fairway, leaving 50 yards to a dead center pin.  Where did my shot end up?

Big Mouth.  Hello bogey.  The answer to your question is yes.  If only for the same reason that you don't play #8 (for the ladies) at 250+ for all four days.  You must have dynamic conditions--yes these can be created by length dilemmas--to really expose the best golfer.

[TEPaul]

Well, judging from all the responses on this title question to this point it seems absolutely no one agrees with me, which only goes to prove that all of you completely suck as an expert "set-up" guy for a US Open championship!

[Matthew Rose]

They played it at 229 yards today, which I thought was ridiculous. Creamer was the only player who didn't go for it (and in all fairness, the one player who didn't have to go for it).

[John Moore II]

They played it at 229 yards today, which I thought was ridiculous. Creamer was the only player who didn't go for it (and in all fairness, the one player who didn't have to go for it).

I thought that set-up was stupid too. Basically they played it as a hard par 3 rather than a risk/reward par 4.

[Bill_McBride]

They played it at 229 yards today, which I thought was ridiculous. Creamer was the only player who didn't go for it (and in all fairness, the one player who didn't have to go for it).

I thought that set-up was stupid too. Basically they played it as a hard par 3 rather than a risk/reward par 4.

So what?  It's a medal play event, everybody plays the same hole!  What difference could it make?

[John Moore II]

They played it at 229 yards today, which I thought was ridiculous. Creamer was the only player who didn't go for it (and in all fairness, the one player who didn't have to go for it).

I thought that set-up was stupid too. Basically they played it as a hard par 3 rather than a risk/reward par 4.

So what?  It's a medal play event, everybody plays the same hole!  What difference could it make?

I believe the way they set up the hole was in contradiction to the architects original intent for the hole. If they hole is designed to be played as a short par 4, it aught to be played that way. It shouldn't be contrived to play as basically a longish par 3.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran, you bozo, and to all of your bozo followers, if you move the tee back to the tips, do you not feel that the "LPGA pros" the greatest women golfers in the world, would determine the ideal position to approach from, and merely target that area off the tee ?

The 17th green is not Pebble Beachish small.

I think there's a greater likelihood of a high score when golfers are lured into a gamble off that tee and find themselves in terrible lies/position, versus, the disecting of the hole from the back tee and playing it with surgical precision to a targeted area in the fairway, leaving a relatively short approach, probably off an uphill lie to a fairly flat green.

[TEPaul]

My God----even if he may not realize it, Pat Mucci and I finally agree----as well as disagreeing with the rest of you mind-numbing bozos's opinions on here thus far, including Ranulph Jean D'Alegue Sartre DeTocqueville Morrissett VIII. As far as being competent "set-up" guys the rest of you guys, other than Mucci and me, are in soiled, stinky diaper pants!

[Tim Gavrich]

I almost feel as though having a 229 yard par 4 is insulting to female professional golfers (granted: it is markedly uphill), although I completely understand what the USGA is going for in making it so short.  Was the green not reached in one when it was 250 yards the other days?  Has the USGA perhaps gone a bit overboard with golf course elasticity in their championships the last couple years?  I still am scratching my head over why they made the 3rd at Pebble 30 yards shorter on the Saturday, especially when the pin was too difficult to yield more than the odd flukey birdie.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

I, for one, think the set-ups that recent US Opens and particularly Mike Davis is doing is a conscious attempt to skew the concept of par for both the pros and perhaps the rest of us. I just can't imagine how one could find fault with that concept, unless of course one's motivation is to somehow find fault with every single thing the USGA does! Frankly I would not put that past some and some on here. 

[Matthew Rose]

conscious attempt to skew the concept of par

I have to say that there is a certain discomfort in seeing yardages perhaps outside what we might think the accepted conventions of "par" actually are.

It's a little weird seeing a par four listed at 229 yards on the same day as a par-three being played at 250+.

[Martin Toal]

In 1984, in the final round at TOC, Watson hit a 2 iron second shot at the 17th.

OK, it was a club too many, probably, but I like the idea of seeing the best players hitting a decent length of approach at this hole.

[Ran Morrissett]

Playing it at 229 yards ranks in the top 10 all time bad USGA course set-up decisions.

Did everyone see how nervous Paula Creamer was over her pitch approach? That's because it is one of the scariest in the game AND YET, DUE TO THE USGA CONTINUING TO TRY AND BE CUTE, WE WERE ROBBED OF SEEING THE FIELD HAVE TO EXECUTE ONE OF THE BEST/COOLEST SHOTS ON THE ENTIRE COURSE.

Also, following a long par three with another long par three is disingenuous. Variety is the key and the ideal course set-up needs to constantly ask the players to hit different shots (i.e. follow the long sixteenth with the need for a nervy pitch at the seventeenth).

What a great pity. 

None of this is very complicated, unless of course you read Tom Paul's posts. 

And don't pay attention to Pat either - he has very bad memories of a recent seventeenth hole event. Isn't that right Pat? 

I get playing it forward once or twice but not all four days and certainly not from 229 yards. Why not play it from the top of the hill at 100 yards and call it a par 5? That way we could see double eagles!!

The USGA needs to go re-examine how David Eger set-up courses and stick close to that script. Oakmont and Pebble don't require the same razzmatazz set-up as Torey Pines in order for there to be interest.

Cheers,

[Steve Kline]

One of the announcers said yesterday that the setup of 17 at 229 yards provided the players lots of options. WHAT OPTIONS?!? One, and only one player laid up and that was because she had a four or five shot lead. There were no options at all. It was way too short. Not every player in the field should be able to drive the green with relative ease (based on length). This is why from what I have seen the 10th at Riviera is the greatest drivable par 4 ever made. You can get there and there is a big reward if you hit a great shot. There's huge risk if you don't. Also, you see people play the hole any number of ways. And for the Tour pros, with all of these options, the scoring average is darn near 4 on the hole.

Holes need to create thought and indecision in the mind of the player. This causes anxiety in the player and what makes for a truly great hole. The setup on 17 yesterday did nothing of the sort.

[PCCraig]

The 17th played way too short. Either they wanted it that way or they underestimated how long the women hit the ball and the amount of risk they are willing to take on.

[TEPaul]

"It's a little weird seeing a par four listed at 229 yards on the same day as a par-three being played at 250+."


Is that right? Did they play #8 at 250+ again yesterday? Well then with that as a par 3 and #17 as a 229 yard par 4 that sure is par skewing. Very cool. Maybe Mike Davis should talk to Oakmont about how Paula Creamer posts her final round score for handicap purposes. 

[Tags:]

Tags: