[Matthew Essig]

Yes

Yes

Although I think it could be even better with some changes   

Am I the only person who thinks it could use a slight update 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mathew,

What kind of update would you recommend ?

[Matthew Essig]

Being an aspiring architect, I would love to give some changes...

1. I would get rid of the bunker on the cliff that doesn't come into play
2. I would shave the back all the way up to the bunkers so the back bunkers are in play more but if you get caught on the back you have the opportunity to get up and down with the steep green instead of flattening the back of the green ( I agree with many GCA members that greens should keep as much of their original slope in them as possible) I would actually make the back couple of yards a little STEEPER for there to be a challenge still and so you can hit a shot stone dead to the hole location on the right with a great shot off the backboard
3. Because of the backboard I would make the part on the right extend even farther right and have a hole location next to the ocean ( IMO the green doesn't bring the ocean into play other than the fact that you hit over the ocean for the first part of the shot)
4. I would bring shrink the fairway by bringing the left side in ( for a non driver hole, it is too wide of a fairway)
5. I would raise the front part of the green slightly ( not front edge) for a couple hole locations, thus causing a bigger false front too.

That is all I can think of right now...

If anybody doesn't like some of my changes or have some of their own... Please comment.

[Joe Leenheer]

If you were going to pick one par 4 to play every day for the rest of your life, would this crack the top ten?

According to Mr. Nicklaus...yes as well as the other 17 holes. 

Unless he miraculously joins GCA, I was asking for YOUR opinion Joe.  Jack's has been more than well documented in far less stellar publications than this. 

I agree with Mr. Nicklaus on the course (although I haven't played CPC yet which may change my opinion)...but I wouldn't want to play #8 over and over again which IMO has no bearing on how great a hole it is.  I would put it in my personal top 10 of 4 pars (which means little to nothing to the likes of GCA'rs) :-)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mathew,

A NON-DRIVER hole for WHOM ?

What many forget is the uphill nature of the drive makes the hole play longer, but what even more forget is that the temperature and density of the "ocean" air make the hole play longer than the yardage.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The routing and use of the land is BRILLIANT on # 8 and the holes that precede and follow it

[Matthew Essig]

Okay, Patrick... Your right that it might be a driver for some people, but a person doesn't need a 75 yard fairway for a person to hit the fairway... IMO, just shrinking it to 60-65 yards would be a slight improvement, add a little more excitement to the drive. I'm not saying it should be 45 yards, though.

[Matthew Essig]

What about the other changes I thought of 

[Joe Leenheer]

Okay, Patrick... Your right that it might be a driver for some people, but a person doesn't need a 75 yard fairway for a person to hit the fairway... IMO, just shrinking it to 60-65 yards would be a slight improvement, add a little more excitement to the drive. I'm not saying it should be 45 yards, though.

It's a blind up-hill tee shot....if any hole should have a "wide" fairway it's this one.  (and Tiger has hit driver on 8 more than once in tourneys). 

[Matthew Essig]

I completely agree that it needs a WIDE fairway, I'm just saying that you could chop 5 or 10 yards off the left and no one would notice

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matthew,

I don't know the exact measurements of the fairway in the DZ, but, as Joe indicated, a blind hole should have width, especially with the Pacific as a lateral hazard and with the winds that buffet that site.

In general, I usually oppose change since it usually signals the fall of the first domino.

As to the other changes you suggested,  the bunker in the cliff is a bit of a safety net and provides a framing visual.

I'd oppose the creation of a false front as the hole is hard enough and doesn't need additional window dressing.

How many times have you played the hole ?

[Matthew Essig]

A couple of times.
You could keep the framing bunker; it was just a suggestion.
When the course starts rolling fast during the summer, the front part of the green is a false front. I was thinking that you could flatten the 5-10 yard deep part of the green slightly to have a couple of hole locations in the front and have a slightly more severe false front. When the greens start rolling fast, the green becomes so fast that the less than average golfer (who usually plays PB) would 4 or 5 putt a front hole location and/or putt it off the front of the green.

[Jud_T]

I wouldn't want to play #8 over and over again which IMO has no bearing on how great a hole it is.  


?  So you're saying it's the ultimate golf tourist destination?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jud,

I'm with you.

I think the desire to play a hole again, over and over and over, is one of the signs that it's a great hole.

I could play # 6, # 8 and # 18, a par 3, 4 and 5 at NGLA over and over and over again, every day of my life and never tire of them.

I think that's the mark of a great hole.

[Adam Clayman]

Matthew, Are you making the above suggestions having never been there?, Or as a frequent visitor?

There's no way you could shave the grass to the back bunkers. The steepness is such that any ball rolling up that slop would come screaming off the green, especially on that right side. Which is practically falling into the ocean.

I'd do the opposite with the fairway, I'd widen it on both sides, allowing the player to pick his line of charm. Depending on the winds, this seems fundamental.

The bunker well short, on the cliff creates a visual deception, for those of us who still like to use our eyes and feel for shots. Removing it would be a terrible loss.

I would cut the left rough on that hillside to allow balls to sling in from that side, but, I like to see balls run out being affected by gravity, as opposed to stopping right where they land on soft sticky grass.

[Jed Peters]

almost everybody who has complained that the tee shot is a forced layup could comfortably hit driver there all day.

Joe:

I recently played a couple rounds there with a pretty long low single digit.

They uncomfortably hit driver there no problem.

See, one knows they MUST hit a good tee shot in order to have a good second shot. I recently watched the ATT. Sure, if you're comfortable carrying a mid-iron 215 yards, then go ahead and lay back. For me, at sea level, that's a solid 5 wood though.

You know this on the tee, and that you MUST hit a good tee ball to give yourself even the most remote chance at par.

I'm not even commenting on the second shot. Come on now. How is that not the greatest second shot par 4 in the world?

And for all you MacKenzie-philes, it's one of the last Mac greens (or vestiges of Mac) at Pebble, after all! (Reminds me of 11 at Pasa, to be honest.)

[Kevin Pallier]

David / Andrew

I find it interesting that us Antipodeans aren't as excited as many on here about # 8 ?

I fail to see how a hole with a blind drive to a fairway that runs out to a hazard gets so much love. Should we all forget about it and just only focus on the shot into the green ?

[Bill Brightly]

Kevin,

I fail to see why you don't find a blind tee shot FUN especially when you know that to have a legitimate chance to hit the green in regulation, you have to take enough club to hit the ball over a cliff into the Pacific Ocean. That's not cool?

[Matthew Essig]

Matthew, Are you making the above suggestions having never been there?, Or as a frequent visitor?

There's no way you could shave the grass to the back bunkers. The steepness is such that any ball rolling up that slop would come screaming off the green, especially on that right side. Which is practically falling into the ocean.

I'd do the opposite with the fairway, I'd widen it on both sides, allowing the player to pick his line of charm. Depending on the winds, this seems fundamental.

The bunker well short, on the cliff creates a visual deception, for those of us who still like to use our eyes and feel for shots. Removing it would be a terrible loss.

I would cut the left rough on that hillside to allow balls to sling in from that side, but, I like to see balls run out being affected by gravity, as opposed to stopping right where they land on soft sticky grass.

I have been there a few times now.

I'm not saying that we should cut the grass to the back bunkers at green length but at fairway height and the same with the left side as you mentioned. I think if the back bunkers were more in play, the hole would be much more interesting. Even if your ball rolls through and gets caught in the fairway cut inbetween though, you could then putt it.

As I think about it, I think the visual bunker is a good thing and I have previously stated that I would keep it.

Again I was just making suggesstions. The tightening of the fairway isn't neccessary, too.

What about my suggesstion about the slight flattening of the front to allow the use of the front hole locations more? I know that many people are opposed to flattening greens, but still, the front of that green gets too fast to use the front hole locations now.

[Adam Clayman]

Matthew, I would wonder about messing around with a green that close to the cliff's edge. It's already pretty precarious on the back right. I can recall seeing the pin in the mid section, just a couple of times. The hole is a better hole with the back pins, because the rear bunkers have relevance. A front pin takes them right out of play, because the player is not tempted to get it to the back. So, the rear bunkers are in play, because they are in the mind's eye of the golfer, or, at the very least, should be in his pre-shot strategy session, as in, DON"T GO LONG.

Poa annua greens are rarely able to get too speedy. Maybe in June when they try to replicate Open like conditions. When I caddied there, the greens were never fast save for the month of June, and even then it wasn't over 10 ft. All the greens at Pebble are too good to ruin (soften)  Placating the ego driven speed race is just about the dumbest thing they could do (So they probably will).

As an example; Lefties victory this past week was due to his putting. He stroked those putts the way a player needs to, on Poa annua. I call it taking charge over the ball. It's a necessity in the winter time on Peninsula.

[Matthew Essig]

With 9 and 10 after 8, I think it could be a little interesting having a birdie chance with a good shot to the front hole locations if you hit a great shot, which you have to hit to have a reasonable birdie chance. The beauty of golf course architecture: flexibility.

[Kevin Pallier]

Kevin,

I fail to see why you don't find a blind tee shot FUN especially when you know that to have a legitimate chance to hit the green in regulation, you have to take enough club to hit the ball over a cliff into the Pacific Ocean. That's not cool?

Bill

A lot of blind tee shots are fun (and I've played a few) but I'm not a fan of those that have a blind lateral or for that matter water hazard in the LZ ?

I'm definitely with you on the second shot but I fail to see how many look past the issues with getting there on #8.

[Bill Brightly]

Kevin,

I am going to post this aerial again because I think you are missing how much room you have long and left. I haven't played there too often, but I recall that the tee points you at the safest layup, which is too short to hit the green, IMO. I think you have to force yourself to aim further left and take more club than you are comfortable with, especially if you frequently miss right, and that is what really makes the tee shot so good.

[Kevin Pallier]

Bill

Thanks for the aerial - though my point remains. I wouldnt have so much an issue if you were seeing what's depicted there from the tee but the fact is you dont - as the shot is blind. All you really see from the tee is the white rock - you cant really see the extent of the hazard line and I think it detracts from the hole

[Bill Brightly]

Bill

Thanks for the aerial - though my point remains. I wouldnt have so much an issue if you were seeing what's depicted there from the tee but the fact is you dont - as the shot is blind. All you really see from the tee is the white rock - you cant really see the extent of the hazard line and I think it detracts from the hole

Hmmm, and I say that is what makes the tee shot unique. Let's say you take driver, hit it well, but miss your intended line by ten yards to the right. You may have to wait  5 minutes until you find out if your ball is in the hazard or not. I think the feeling of uncertainty simply adds to the tee shot. I love it when a feature disrupts the golfer's normal pre-shot routine.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()