[Pete Lavallee]

Just after this years AT&T Pro Am, Golf Week reported that each year after the tournament Pebble converts two of its greens to USGA standards. This year they were tackling the 14th and 17th greens. Ater watching the 1st Tee Event this weekend I have to wonder: why did they even bother? I couldn't notice any difference on the 14th; it still appears the upper portion is the only pinnable location. I didn't see any noticeable expansion of the upper section either.

The 17th did appear to have a slightly larger pinch point, but one Jr. player still had to chip off the right section to get to a front left pin! Furthermore, even playing only 179 yards, no Sr. player I saw was able to hit and hold the green. It did appear that there was some additional area in the back left added, but the green is still ridiculously small for the shot called for. The anouncer indicated that Kirk Triplett had brought his iron shot in very high and still it ended up in the rough behind the green. Is it acceptable to have a green that can't be held by any shot that hits the putting surface? Should Pebble Beach be given a pass for allowing their greens to shrink to riduiculously small dimensions and then only recapturing a fraction of the lost surfaces in the rebuild?

[Mark McKeever]

Agreed Pete.  Seeing the original 7th green is saddening to see how much it has decreased in size over the years.

Mark

[Tom_Doak]

The 17th did appear to have a slightly larger pinch point, but one Jr. player still had to chip off the right section to get to a front left pin! Furthermore, even playing only 179 yards, no Sr. player I saw was able to hit and hold the green. It did appear that there was some additional area in the back left added, but the green is still ridiculously small for the shot called for. The anouncer indicated that Kirk Triplett had brought his iron shot in very high and still it ended up in the rough behind the green. Is it acceptable to have a green that can't be held by any shot that hits the putting surface?

That would be the second par-3 on the back nine that plays like that.  The 12th has played that way for 30 years.

[Dan King]

I've hit and held the 17th green numerous times and I have seen them use numerous pin positions on 14.

The problem is at the green speeds the pros like it. I'd be opposed to changing the golf course for those that just show up twice a year.

Cheers,
Dan

The name Pebble Beach might suggest a seaside course in the manner of the links of Britain. But it is far from that. I can think of no approximate parallel.
 --Pat Ward-Thomas, 1966

[Pete Lavallee]

Dan,

The issue is the green on 17 has shrunk dramatically since 1919. Old pictures show the bottleneck to be close to 20 yards not 20 paces wide. If indeed their intent was to restore lost green space during this years rebuild they were woefully inept in their quest. Look, Pebble Beach with its right to print money, should be the leader in trying to preserve their golf course. Historical pictures indicate that they have lost over 2/3 of the 17th green. Why not use some of that cash to restore it to Neville's original design?

[Dan King]

Lots of changes have happened to Pebble since 1919.  The 18th hole was originally a shortish par-4.  Should that be restored?

When golf is involved, I'm about as conservative as they come.  I'm generally all in favor of restoring a course to an earlier time. However, I don't think we should change just for the sake of change. You said the 17th should be changed because when the pros come to town the green doesn't work at the speed they like it. While I generally like restorations, I hate changing courses for the rare times the pros come to town.

It would not be difficult to  go to Pebble and track how the average golfer plays 14 and 17. I would oppose any changes until we have a better idea how the two holes typically play.

Cheers,
Dan King

When he makes that, the golf tournament is history. I've had it happen before, but I don't think it's going to happen again. But it did. . . How would I evaluate that shot? One of the worst that ever happened to me. Right up there with Trevino's [chip-in] at Muirfield [on the 71st hold of the 1972 British Open].
 --Jack Nicklaus (on Tom Watson's chip-in birdie from heavy rough on the 71st hole of the 1982 U.S. Open at Pebble Beach)

[Pete Lavallee]

[That would be the second par-3 on the back nine that plays like that.  The 12th has played that way for 30 years.

That's true, but at least you can run one on through the opening at the front right there and take two putts for par to a far left pin. However when the pin is set on the left of 17 you seem to have two choices: up and down from the front trap or up and down from the rough behind the green. Although Dan King may be able to hold that green, if Sr. Tour players can't from 179 yards it seems a bit silly to me.

Does anyone know just exactly how much green space was reclaimed on 17?

[Kris Shreiner]

Having seen hundreds of players hit and hold the left portion of #17 green, it has to be the firmness that's preventing the pros from finishing on the surface. That the entire green could be enlarged sympathetically by 25 percent and really better accommodate the pros (and everyone else.) If you look at older photos, the hole had a more expansive look and feel.

I will say the the prevailing NW wind really calls for a slight cut shot, held into that wind. The problem is that the tee box rarely has the markers over far enough left to hit that shot without difficulty. The straight or drawn ball has little chance of holding when that green is firm. It's that simple.

#14 for me is another story. Many on this site(and elsewhere) cried it was unfair during the most recent U. S. Open. Bullstinky! It was an AWESOME set-up. You had to understand the hole AND think. That reality destroyed much of the field. Sometimes you have to show restraint and accept that you will get punished if you are too aggressive. Except for a front right pin, which NEVER occurs in a professional event, long right is ALWAYS the miss on that hole. It leaves you full access to any other portion of the green, with plenty of surface to work with. Most importantly, you won't leave the green with your next shot unless you basically skull it.

Now to where that hole could be improved, from my view. That upper portion has room to enlarge and increase the pinnable area up there, particularly on the right. Where that hole certainly needs help is the washboard steep right front and central portions. The blasted sand from the right parallel bunker landing on the green over the years has SIGNIFICANTLY increased the pitch angle of the slope. They need to totally redo that and soften the steepness. Done deftly, this would allow more opportunity to pin a location in that area. The firmness and speed of both 14 and #17 could be kept a tad less than the other holes during a professiona event and I believe much of the consternation about them would disappear.

Cheers,
Kris
 

[Adam Clayman]

Ya'll should know that Kris knows of what he speaks. His opinion of the 14th is excellent. However, there's only one catch. The word deftly. Anyone who knows who's in-charge will know deftly is likely not a strong suit.

As it stood in recent past, there's at least 3 pin position on that upper left portion of #14. It is the reverse slope, on the back side of the front left bunker is what causes most balls to repel long. Soften that and it would be a larger effective landing area.

I still think the smartest and easiest solution is to grow the entire right side of the green to a higher HOC. That side of the green, when stimps were in the 8-9 range, WORKED EXCELLENTLY. So a tight collar HOC, would make it more playable for shots that are well played, and not just superiorly played.

Also, We've been told forever how great "these guys are". When faced with a real challenge, there's all this uproar (mostly media driven) to alter the GCA.

Kris is right again. BULLSTINKY!

[Pete Lavallee]

Adam,

Supposedly the rework of 14 and 17 has been completed. Surely someone has some insight into what exactly was accomplished in the rebuild?

[Adam Clayman]

Pete, I can try and find out, but my source is currently away. Kris will likely have a better chance. In the past, the company has painstakingly only changed the sub grading. They even keep the exact same grass. The 1st at Del Monte was changed years ago and they used some new (new then) on how to keep the turf alive, while they did the work.

Pete, Knowing that the 14th green was an artist commission, how do you feel about altering a work of art?

[Terry Lavin]

Bullstinky?  Not sure, but both are rinky-dink blots on the lovely PB landscape. Blow 'em both up and put something else in that fits the design while being playable.

[Pete Lavallee]

Pete, Knowing that the 14th green was an artist commission, how do you feel about altering a work of art?

Frankly I have no problem with the 14th green; players on the weekend had no problem hitting and holding it, an exacting shot but doable. The 17th just seemed a joke. My big concern is that Golf Week stated that when converting these two greens to USGA specifications they would be expanded. I did not see much change and was wondering if the Pebble Beach Corp thinks that the mission was accomplished.

[Adam Clayman]

Bullstinky?  Not sure, but both are rinky-dink blots on the lovely PB landscape. Blow 'em both up and put something else in that fits the design while being playable.

Often wrong never in doubt.

[Kris Shreiner]

Adam,

Too Funny!!! . I'll get a full update on the more recent tweaks, but concur...they frequently haven't REALLY gotten down to the root of the problem out there. Sometimes, more than just light cosmetics are required. Sadly, when the scalpel has come out, marginal effiorts have often been the result. Fresh GCA insights on-campus would be a Godsend.

Cheers, 
Kris

[Matthew Petersen]

I played Pebble on Monday morning, just after the Champions event. If they have done work to the 14th green within the past few months (ie, it used to be more severe) ... well, wow. Just wow.

But it's by no means unplayable on the top left portion. I was in the front bunker and got up and down. I'm no pro, so it's do-able. (And this is with tournament [not US Open, mind you] firmness and green speed.)

The upper left seems a great spot, and big enough to not be an issue in terms of number of pinnable areas. But if they're never going to put the pin on the right side or middle of the green, why continue to cut it as green? I asked my caddie and he said he couldn't recall the last time he saw the hole cut anywhere but above the bunker. Seems like there's some other potential solution here.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Pete I am sorry I missed you this weekend. I am with you on 14 and 17. However I am not sure 17 will ever be right with the back pin location for anything other than the pros. It is just too long and the green too small.

[Kris Shreiner]

Matt,

You are right, one can get up and down from that front left bunker. My reference for the miss being long right is that you are trying to land ON the green, not end up short, with a chance at a fried egg in that bunker. I've seen many a player bury in that upper face and be totally stuffed. They generally keep that bunker face sand thinnner and firmer now, which reduces that scenario. But if you hit the sand shot thin, it can often go right over the back and down the slope.
Glad you pulled it off!

Cheers,
Kris

[Matthew Petersen]

Matt,

You are right, one can get up and down from that front left bunker. My reference for the miss being long right is that you are trying to land ON the green, not end up short, with a chance at a fried egg in that bunker. I've seen many a player bury in that upper face and be totally stuffed. They generally keep that bunker face sand thinnner and firmer now, which reduces that scenario. But if you hit the sand shot thin, it can often go right over the back and down the slope.
Glad you pulled it off!

Cheers,
Kris

You are certainly right. While the AT&T a couple years back, and the US Open, featured shaved areas around the upper left side of the green, set up the way it is for everyday play (and for the seniors, apparently), if you can get it up top you have a good chance. Right is better than left, for sure. You wouldn't want to have your approach miss left as it could kick hard off that hill, but an overly firm shot from the right is not now going to run away down the left slope.

[SL_Solow]

Notwithstanding the article, was the purpose of the change to USGA specs expansion or restoration?  Ordinarily one converts a green in order to improve drainage or in an effort to give bent a better chance against poa.  A green can be expanded or contracted without converting its undersurface.  So the discussion of the adequacy of the greens ought to be independent of the conversion unless this is merely to lament a lost opportunity.

[Pete Lavallee]

SL,

The Golf Week article clearly stated that each year two grens are converted to USGA specifications and during the process they would attempt to make both more playable. Just wondering how that turnd out. Did you watch any of the tournament last weekend?

[SL_Solow]

You bet I did.  It does not appear that there were any significant expansions.  My point is that there are a lot of "reasons" for going to USGA spec (something we chose not to do when we regrassed) but none of them have much to do with restoration or expansion.  Of course one can expand the greens or remodel them while changing the base but usually greens are converted for agronomic reasons.  So I questioned the "connection" cited in the article.  Clearly, as they do 2 per year, they won't remodel every green.  Whether those 2 should be remodeled is a question of taste.  I am pretty much on board for some restoration/expansion of 17.  I am less convinced on 14 as it is a par 5 and can be approached with a short iron.

[Joel_Stewart]

Played Pebble on Friday.   Currently the 9th green is a temporary green.  It's finished yet the sod hasn't had a chance to grow in so there is a temporary green about 50 yards in front of the green.



The bunker renovation on 16, 17 and 18 is almost complete.   The 17th is baffling since it appears they did nothing about the green.



The new $5 million practice facility just started construction.  It's located across the street from the current range. I believe it will be completed by the beginning of next year.



The 14th green will be next.   Nobody seemed to know what shape that new green will be???

[Tom_Doak]

Who is actually doing this work?  And how do they decide what to do?

[Phil McDade]

One of the better-titled threads in recent GCA history, courtesy of our host:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44722.0.html

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()