Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: MCirba on May 06, 2022, 06:09:39 PM
-
Posted without comment.
https://golf.com/travel/pebble-beach-8th-hole-green-more-dramatic/ (https://golf.com/travel/pebble-beach-8th-hole-green-more-dramatic/)
-
Posted without comment.
https://golf.com/travel/pebble-beach-8th-hole-green-more-dramatic/ (https://golf.com/travel/pebble-beach-8th-hole-green-more-dramatic/)
Bigger!
-
I played Pebble in the early 1990s with my brother. It was an intimidating second shot to the 8th green over the deep cove, especially me being dumb enough to walk forward to the cliff edge before the shot. Hit my second into the front right greenside bunker, splashed out and two putted. The caddie for the couple who we paired with was a California State Amateur Champion. I don't remember his name. Here is a pix of my tee shot on 17. It wasn't as good as Nicklaus' one iron shot.
(https://i.imgur.com/5vif0qB.jpg)
-
Karl,
We need to play golf.
Thanks.
-
I'd be pretty unhappy to pay $550 or whatever they're charging now and have to play to a temporary green.
-
Karl Jensen -
Sounds like the caddie in your group at Pebble was Casey Boyns, one of the most decorated amateur golfers in Northern California over the past 40 years.. He won the Cal State Am twice and was 4 times NCGA Player of the Year.
https://goldenstate.is/longtime-caddie-casey-boyns-encapsulates-the-legendary-appeal-of-pebble-beach (https://goldenstate.is/longtime-caddie-casey-boyns-encapsulates-the-legendary-appeal-of-pebble-beach)
https://www.amateurgolf.com/Players/20147/Casey-Boyns (https://www.amateurgolf.com/Players/20147/Casey-Boyns)
I recall he qualified for the US Senior Open a couple of years ago.
DT
-
Oh no, no, no no. Blasphemy.
-
I'd be pretty unhappy to pay $550 or whatever they're charging now and have to play to a temporary green.
Correct since I’ve waited to hit that shot my whole golfing life and finally have a mid-July tee time. I’ll be livid if I don’t get to try that shot.
-
Karl Jensen -
Sounds like the caddie in your group at Pebble was Casey Boyns, one of the most decorated amateur golfers in Northern California over the past 40 years.. He won the Cal State Am twice and was 4 times NCGA Player of the Year.
https://goldenstate.is/longtime-caddie-casey-boyns-encapsulates-the-legendary-appeal-of-pebble-beach (https://goldenstate.is/longtime-caddie-casey-boyns-encapsulates-the-legendary-appeal-of-pebble-beach)
https://www.amateurgolf.com/Players/20147/Casey-Boyns (https://www.amateurgolf.com/Players/20147/Casey-Boyns)
I recall he qualified for the US Senior Open a couple of years ago.
DT
Thanks David,
That's him. I remembered last night that his first name was Casey before reading your message. My brother, who lives in San Jose, told me at the time who he was. I don't remember Casey giving us any course advice nor did we ask. After all he was the other couple's caddie. I think we paid $150 a piece greens fee. My brother knew someone who knew someone that got us a discount. The weather was beautiful, the seaside views wonderful but to tell you the truth I had played on better maintained courses while vacationing at Myrtle Beach, SC. Did I just commit blasphemy? ::)
Karl
-
"to tell you the truth I had played on better maintained courses while vacationing at Myrtle Beach, SC. Did I just commit blasphemy? ::) "
Karl
You did Karl. But no worries, you're still welcome in MB. ;)
On a serious note, did anyone here know of this current renovation beforehand? If not, it outshines the Baltimore Colts "midnight run."
-
I'd be pretty unhappy to pay $550 or whatever they're charging now and have to play to a temporary green.
Correct since I’ve waited to hit that shot my whole golfing life and finally have a mid-July tee time. I’ll be livid if I don’t get to try that shot.
Temp green it is..
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSBEK-fVIAUWfFb?format=jpg&name=large)
-
As I recall this is the smallest green on the course. Given the shot required and the lush turf surrounding the green, expansion is reasonable.
Mike
-
As I recall this is the smallest green on the course. Given the shot required and the lush turf surrounding the green, expansion is reasonable.
Mike
Mike,
I measured all the greens last year with the Google Earth Tool. I have it coming in as 3rd smallest behind 11 and 4 at just under 2500 sq feet. But certainly agree given its tiny size, combined with alot of that area being unpinnable, it does seem reasonable given green speeds aren't gonna revert.
-
Did I read that correctly that they are moving the green?
-
As I recall this is the smallest green on the course. Given the shot required and the lush turf surrounding the green, expansion is reasonable.
Mike
Mike,
I measured all the greens last year with the Google Earth Tool. I have it coming in as 3rd smallest behind 11 and 4 at just under 2500 sq feet. But certainly agree given its tiny size, combined with alot of that area being unpinnable, it does seem reasonable given green speeds aren't gonna revert.
This reminds me of a topic that I thought would've been discussed more intensely here, i.e. the USGA's new "anchor site" championship hosting model, for its men's and women's Opens stretching out well into the future. As the article notes, Oakmont and Pinehurst No. 2 join Pebble as the current anchor sites, hosting several US Opens each in the years ahead. (I say 'current' because I don't know if other courses will sooner/later join the 'rota', or if the USGA has announced any plans in this regard.) It seems to me a very interesting development, with many aspects/implications -- corporate, financial, and I suppose architectural too. With whatever many and varied benefits the anchor sites accrue from that designation, might the 'costs' include their almost-automatic deferring to the USGA re: decisions just like this one?
-
As I recall this is the smallest green on the course. Given the shot required and the lush turf surrounding the green, expansion is reasonable.
Mike
Mike,
I measured all the greens last year with the Google Earth Tool. I have it coming in as 3rd smallest behind 11 and 4 at just under 2500 sq feet. But certainly agree given its tiny size, combined with alot of that area being unpinnable, it does seem reasonable given green speeds aren't gonna revert.
This reminds me of a topic that I thought would've been discussed more intensely here, i.e. the USGA's new "anchor site" championship hosting model, for its men's and women's Opens stretching out well into the future. As the article notes, Oakmont and Pinehurst No. 2 join Pebble as the current anchor sites, hosting several US Opens each in the years ahead. (I say 'current' because I don't know if other courses will sooner/later join the 'rota', or if the USGA has announced any plans in this regard.) It seems to me a very interesting development, with many aspects/implications -- corporate, financial, and I suppose architectural too. With whatever many and varied benefits the anchor sites accrue from that designation, might the 'costs' include their almost-automatic deferring to the USGA re: decisions just like this one?
Peter-Although I believe there will be some deference by the “anchors” the USGA could expect more pushback from Oakmont than either Pinehurst or Pebble just based on the private versus public/resort model. Time will tell.
-
Tim Martin,
I don’t recall Oakmont pushing back on changes made for previous Opens.
-
Tim Martin,
I don’t recall Oakmont pushing back on changes made for previous Opens.
Tim-I can’t argue with that but will reserve judgement going forward. The “anchor” designation was absent from prior championships so not sure how much additional sway comes with it for the USGA.
-
More photos
https://twitter.com/GlorifiedDonkey/status/1522291638453776384
So would you still pay full price with a temp green on no. 8?
-
More photos
https://twitter.com/GlorifiedDonkey/status/1522291638453776384 (https://twitter.com/GlorifiedDonkey/status/1522291638453776384)
So would you still pay full price with a temp green on no. 8?
Those are actually the same pics in the original article.
But the comments on that Twitter page are hilarious! ;D
I like this one the best: Good thing Augusta National never changed,
-
Two things about this - a bigger deal than the new vs old green.
1.) After a layup for many, this will make a longer second shot from atop the cliff down to the green. The hole is gorgeous but a little awkward, and it feels like it will get more awkward, and;
2.) The walk back from the 8th green to the 9th tee will further disrupt the flow of the place.
Would they have been better off to replace the green in-place and play to a temp green for a little bit?
-
I don't know, Steve. It's a long way to the end of 8 fairway, even from the resort tees. The handful of guys who truly need to lay up are also the handful of guys whose power might warrant a slightly lengthened approach. That approach would have been played with hickory shafts fairly often in the early days of the hole. So the notion that a good player might need as much as 3w-7i to get there in two shots these days doesn't seem oppressive to me.
It also doesn't look, from the pics posted, like this will substantially lengthen the approach (if at all). That temporary green looks to be nestled between the two bunkers that normally guard the fairway runup to the green, and the two pits behind the under-construction green, I would assume, are in roughly the same location as the two bunkers behind the green for the last few decades. It's unclear to me that the approach is being lengthened much at all, based on what we know so far from these photos.
-
If you read the comments from GlorifiedDonkey on that twitter post...
He's a caddy at Pebble and maintains the green will basically be in the same spot but made a bit bigger in the rear to accommodate more pin positions. I think the arrows in the Golf Magazine pic are a bit misleading.
-
Personally, I am a PB fan
But with all the holes that I feel like could use work, it seems insane to mess with 8.
I played multiple tournaments as an Am and a pro at Pebble including a US Open.
It is unique, scary and yes, severe, but I never felt like it needed to be “updated” for those events.
I like #5 [size=78%]And am ok with 14 but this one makes me nervous [/size]
-
The green is not being moved, only enlarged. There were not enough hole locations on the old green.
This is consistent with the modifications to the #14 and #17 greens--and recently #11. There hasn't been much pushback on those changes, although some people think some of the teeth were taken out of #11.
-
Found these two early images of Pebble Beach's 8th green from two perspectives. Looks like the green was larger with less bunkers. Notice the extra length of the flagstick in the one photo. The hole was designed originally in 1917 as a 452 yard Par 5. I'm guessing the early golfers would play the hole as a dogleg right in 5 strokes and only a few would take a more heroic route of chancing a long second shot over the Carmel Bay cove.
Pebble Beach Golf Course 8th green, 1918
(https://i.imgur.com/VtHuFm9.jpg)
Pebble Beach Golf Course 8th green, Apr 1922 Golfers Magazine
(https://i.imgur.com/cIbBAvp.jpg)
-
Apparently they have also made this minor change on the 8th as well. But perhaps Darwins Theory should be allowed to continue here... ;)
https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/35573186/pebble-beach-makes-8th-hole-safer-spieth-daring-shot
-
Someone who has been on the green before and after would have to verify (or someone involved in the design and construction), but to me it seems like the new version is a lot flatter compared to the scary tilt of the old one. Is that the case, or does the expanded outline just make it look that way? Green expansion is great; re-contouring and changing the green's character is not.
-
I've probably posted this before (proud dad exemption), but there's not a greater second shot in golf and nothing better than your son hitting it to 6 feet and making the bird.
https://youtu.be/YybDxLkPE5s (https://youtu.be/YybDxLkPE5s)
-
Someone who has been on the green before and after would have to verify (or someone involved in the design and construction), but to me it seems like the new version is a lot flatter compared to the scary tilt of the old one. Is that the case, or does the expanded outline just make it look that way? Green expansion is great; re-contouring and changing the green's character is not.
Flattening was definitely a main purpose. As small as that green was, it’s amazing how little of it was actually pinnable. I think I heard on Golf Channel that the pinnable area has doubled.
-
Is it just me, or do the new surrounds look wonky?
-
Something doesn't look right about it, to my eye. It's kind of jarring.
-
Something doesn't look right about it, to my eye. It's kind of jarring.
Ham-handed? Amateurish? Out of whack?
All come to mind.