Could Pebble have been designed better? What about other great courses?

[Jim Nugent]

I often hear that Pebble has a number of ordinary holes.  Any ideas on how they could have designed those holes better?  In routing, strategy, hazards, green complexes, turf, or any other aspect of GCA?  It would be interesting to hear some specific recommendations.  

I have the same question about the other great courses.  Do you see how the architecture of places like NGLA, Shinnecock, Crystal Downs, RCD or any of the other greats could be improved?  Or did Mac, Ross, Tillie and the others get their masterpieces perfect?  

It seems to me we should try to look at the courses as they were first built.  Not after later generations of architects took their hands at "improving" them.  

 

 

   

[paul cowley]

  I feel Pebble could be improved. I would play #1 thru 8 as they are and then cross over and play #13 thru 9 in reverse, then cross back to finish with #14 thru 18 that would remain the same ..... the green site of #13 in reverse is a better one.....#12 in reverse creates the opportunity once again for an uphill par three replacing the one lost by the renovation of #5.... playing #11 in reverse from 12 tee down to the sea ending at #10 green would be a thrill and a challenge....#9 and 10 play well in either direction....the routing sequence of ocean to inland holes would improve as well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I often hear that Pebble has a number of ordinary holes.

Which holes ?

Whom did you hear this from ?[/color]  

Any ideas on how they could have designed those holes better?  In routing, strategy, hazards, green complexes, turf, or any other aspect of GCA?  It would be interesting to hear some specific recommendations.  

I have the same question about the other great courses. Do you see how the architecture of places like NGLA, Shinnecock, Crystal Downs, RCD or any of the other greats could be improved?  Or did Mac, Ross, Tillie and the others get their masterpieces perfect?  

It seems to me we should try to look at the courses as they were first built.  Not after later generations of architects took their hands at "improving" them.  


You're contradicting yourself.

In the first and second paragraph you want to improve these courses by altering them and in your last paragraph you want to preserve them to their original state.

You're guilty of the same thinking that resulted in the disfiguration of many of our classic or Golden Age golf courses.[/color]
 

 

   

[Dan King]

Pebble Beach has the ordinary holes because they didn't forsee the cart coming along and allowing them to use all sorts of other property within the forest. Just think if they used all the best holes in the forest without too much concern for how the suckers...I mean patrons get between the holes. What is now the 16th at Cypress could be the 17th at Pebble, instead of the blind, bland par-3 they have now.

Dan King

I hasten to say to snobs from the Surrey pine-and-sand country that no invention since the corn plaster or the electric toothbrush has brought greater balm to the extremities of the senior golfer than the golfmobile, a word that will have to do for want of a better.
 --Alister Cooke

[ChipOat]

Ah yes - one of my favorite topics on here.

ALL of the greatest courses had/have plenty of room for "improvement".  Ross and MacDonald both worked on their respective "masterpieces" for, literally, decades.  Golf holes often play differently than they were designed and/or subtle but significant modifications often take many playings of a hole under all kinds of conditions in order to "see" how they might work out.

The more I am priviliged to play several Top 10's, the more I do the armchair architect thing and say, "now here's a good idea (at least to me)".

Of course, there is a risk that such changes turn out to be for the worse.  I'll leave it to Pat Mucci to discourse on golf architecture by committee.

But I do not share the belief that the great ones should only be restored to their virgin original.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

Once the process of altering originals begins .... it never stops.

And, it usually results in disfiguration.

The process is subject to fads, special interest groups and fairness.

While I might agree in theory, that classic holes might be improved, in practice it leads to disastrous results in a disproportionate number of cases.

And, even if you did make an improvement, once the club accepts that it's okay to tinker with the course, it will only be a matter of time before that improvement becomes fair game for the architectural surgical committee at the club.
The smell of ether becomes pervasive.

[George Pazin]

To me, the question of when to tinker is the toughest in gca.

On balance, I think Pat's position is most wise. There are probably way more instances of tinkering damaging a course than improving, whether it's through initial work, or the precedent of modifications to improve. Sometimes - most of the time - I think it's best to leave well enough alone.

[Bob_Huntley]

Thinking on the question raised, reminds me that the old par three fifth hole at Pebble Beach was not much to look at but was one serious test of a golfers ability to hit the right shot at the right time. Sam Morse had not been able to repurchase the ocean front property at Stillwater Cove from Mimi Jenkins so Neville and Grant went left up the hill to the green. Most people disagree with me, but I feel that the scenic hole there now is not the ball buster that preceded it.  

[Dan King]

Bob Huntley writes:
Most people disagree with me, but I feel that the scenic hole there now is not the ball buster that preceded it.

I'm with you. I also liked the feel of playing near the cove, then turning your back on it, only to head back out on the little peninsula. It also didn't require backtracking to the sixth tee. I just don't like how the flow now works along four, five and six.

Dan King

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

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob Huntley writes:
Most people disagree with me, but I feel that the scenic hole there now is not the ball buster that preceded it.

I'm with you. I also liked the feel of playing near the cove, then turning your back on it, only to head back out on the little peninsula. It also didn't require backtracking to the sixth tee. I just don't like how the flow now works along four, five and six.
 

DITTO[/color]

[Jay Cox]

I don't think it's a fair response to Jim Nugent's question to say "tinkering hurts gca."

I generally agree that most revisions to existing courses make the courses worse, but often that is because I disagree with choicse about HOW to modify the existing course, not with the premise that the course could be better if modified.  Of course, the fear that someone else not sharing my vision of what would make the course better might screw it up through modifications is a reason not to actually go through the modifications -- but it's not a reason why one shouldn't consider whether a net positive possible modification exists.

Some people might think that no modification should happen, ever -- either because they think modification inherently makes a golf course worse by creating a mish-mash of styles or because they place the highest value on the golf course as a snapshot into history.  I disagree with those positions (I think one should consider historical value, but that it should not always trump the architectural merit added by some redesigns).  But even for people who think no golf course should ever be modified, I think Jim's question is one worthy of discussion.  One can ask "would it have been better if Chandler Egan had done x instead of y at Pebble Beach?" and answer "yes" even if one would say "no" to "would it be better to change Pebble Beach now so that it is x instead of y?"  

The answer to the question "should something have been done differently at the time of design," the question Jim asked, goes directly to the question of the architectural merit of the original design, a question on which I would to love hear the thoughts of people on this site.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't think it's a fair response to Jim Nugent's question to say "tinkering hurts gca."

It's not only fair, it's disproportionately accurate.[/color]

I generally agree that most revisions to existing courses make the courses worse, but often that is because I disagree with choicse about HOW to modify the existing course, not with the premise that the course could be better if modified.  Of course, the fear that someone else not sharing my vision of what would make the course better might screw it up through modifications is a reason not to actually go through the modifications -- but it's not a reason why one shouldn't consider whether a net positive possible modification exists.

The problem is, the problem isn't static.  Nor are the evaluations of what can and can't be improved.
Opinions fluctuate, they come and go.
Why undertake a process of endless plastic surgery in persuit of perfection when the side affects can be fatal to the design integrity of the original product ?[/color]

Some people might think that no modification should happen, ever -- either because they think modification inherently makes a golf course worse by creating a mish-mash of styles or because they place the highest value on the golf course as a snapshot into history.  I disagree with those positions (I think one should consider historical value, but that it should not always trump the architectural merit added by some redesigns).  But even for people who think no golf course should ever be modified, I think Jim's question is one worthy of discussion.  One can ask "would it have been better if Chandler Egan had done x instead of y at Pebble Beach?" and answer "yes" even if one would say "no" to "would it be better to change Pebble Beach now so that it is x instead of y?"  

It's also a process akin to mental masturbation.

And, if you live in the real world, who will make the qualitative analysis of whether or not the golf course should be modified ?

Five years hence will others come to a different conclusion.

Five years hence ..... and so on and so on.

Having seen what club's do, and why they do it, over the last 50 years, I'm a believer that it's better to NOT tinker with the golf course despite the potential for incremental improvements, because once the process has begun, it will always continue, and the results, over the long haul are invariably, disproportionately for the worse.

It's a rare circumstance and a rare club that makes but one or two changes and never touches the golf course again.

And, today, with the influence of TV combined with the resort-vacation experience, the odds are clearly stacked that a disfiguration will most certainly be the result of the surgery, no matter how well intended and rationalized[/color]

The answer to the question "should something have been done differently at the time of design," the question Jim asked, goes directly to the question of the architectural merit of the original design, a question on which I would to love hear the thoughts of people on this site.[color=green[

Because we don't know all the facts related to the design and building of those golf courses, it's an exercise in futility and/or mental masturbation, take your choice, or both.[/color]

[cary lichtenstein]

Bob:

No question about it

Cary

[Jay Cox]

Patrick, you're right that opinions fluctuate.  That's a very good reason not to tinker with existing courses.  I don't think it's a good reason not to evaluate those courses against the benchmark of what else could have been done with the property.

You say that thought experiment is mental masturbation.  I think evaluating the pros and cons of the approach taken at Pebble Beach (or Merion or Kiawah or any other course) is a great way to understand what features one wants in new courses and to understand how the way people think about architectural choices has changed.  I don't think every time we try to do that it should be dismissed with admonitions about the futility of redesign.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I enjoyed the old 5th hole at PB.  In addition to being an awkward confounding golf hole, after teasing us at #4 we are thereby afforded the walk from old #5 green to the majesty of #6 tee. To me this was the greatest walk in all of golf - UNTIL I got to make the walk to #15  & 16 next door at Cypress Point.  

PS- don't tinker with old classics!

[ChipOat]

I do agree w/Bob Huntley.

Patrick:  I knew I could count on you to weigh in on this.  The results are often as you describe - but not always.

I still think it's worth a shot in most cases.

Augusta National has the benefit of constant public scrutiny so their (IMO) successful efforts are probably not an appropriate benchmark for what can go right.

[Joe Andriole]

Are we talking about the original design or Egan's renovations for the Amateur

[Dan King]

Without getting totally ridiculous and using all of Pebble Beach Forest I only used between the Carmel gate and the 15th at Cypress. Morse would have had more room than that, but what the hell, lets not get crazy. The new/old Pebble has all but three holes running along cliffs, is 7,410-yard par 72, both nines return to the clubhouse and parking lots and it has cartpaths viewable from outer space. It also returned what is now the 16th at Cypress to a par-4 just as Alister Mackenzie originally envisioned. (Nobody does back-to-back par-3s) It also has plenty of dissecting cart paths which end up being ideal spots for bathrooms. It also has much more room for housing along the fairways and between holes.

While mostly a east-west routing, there is plenty of holes that would be difficult to deal wth if the wind picked up.



No. 1 420-yard par 4
No. 2 410-yard par 4
No. 3 175-yard par 3
No. 4 580-yard par 5
No. 5 145-yard par 3
No. 6 450-yard par 4
No. 7 611-yard par 5
No. 8 390-yard par 4
No. 9 510-yard par 4
Out 3,691-yards Par 36

No.10 455-yard par 4
No.11 580-yard par 5
No.12 490-yard par 4
No.13 412-yard par 4
No.14 215-yard par 3
No.15 501-yard par 4
No.16 311-yard par 4
No.17 195-yard par 3
No.18 560-yard par 5
In 3,719-yard Par 36

Total 7,410-yar par 72

Dan King

Pebble Beach. It is tough and the lay out is amazing.
 --Natalie Gulbis

[A_Clay_Man]

Bob Huntley, Be assured that anyone who would argue the newer hole, is tougher, knows less about architecture than even me.

 I was lamenting the loss of the old fifth green just the other day.  I beleive I could see that green every day, and still never be 100% confident, on any read.
 It did have sunlight and air circulation issues but the differece between the old and the new greens, illustrates exactly what Jack says he earned from TD at Sebonack.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, you're right that opinions fluctuate.  That's a very good reason not to tinker with existing courses.  I don't think it's a good reason not to evaluate those courses against the benchmark of what else could have been done with the property.

Absent all of the facts relating to the genesis of the golf course, it's design and construction, everything is pure speculation with no substantive foundation for evaluating what was built versus what could have been built.[/color]

You say that thought experiment is mental masturbation.  I think evaluating the pros and cons of the approach taken at Pebble Beach (or Merion or Kiawah or any other course) is a great way to understand what features one wants in new courses and to understand how the way people think about architectural choices has changed.  

I don't think every time we try to do that it should be dismissed with admonitions about the futility of redesign.

Sure it should.  
It's PURE SPECULATION.

Absent ALL of the substantive FACTS surrounding the genesis, design and construction of the golf course you can't begin to make intelligent commentary.[/color]

Chipoat,

ANGC's purpose has morphed and is more focused on showcasing a Major Tournament each year, and as such, is a bad example, or a good example, depending upon your perspective.  

Jay Cox,

A perfect example would be Sebonack, a golf course recently conceived, designed and built.

Despite its proximity to today's date, we still know very little about the details.  The permiting process, the desires of the owner and architectural team.

We could also speculate as to what would have happened if another designer was hired, or another developer was successful in acquiring the property.

You might think that a hole would be improved if it were modified in a certain way, but, if it couldn't be modified due to permiting restrictions all of your theorizing would be mental masturbation.

I liken the exercise to fantasy football, it's mental masturbation.  But, if you want to indulge in it, feel free to do so.

I'd rather discuss how holes that WERE altered or disfigured could be restored.

Many have mentioned an alternate fairway on # 17 at Pine Valley.   I'd be interested in learning how it faded away and what's the club's position on restoring it.

[paul cowley]

 I feel Pebble could be improved. I would play #1 thru 8 as they are and then cross over and play #13 thru 9 in reverse, then cross back to finish with #14 thru 18 that would remain the same ..... the green site of #13 in reverse is a better one.....#12 in reverse creates the opportunity once again for an uphill par three replacing the one lost by the renovation of #5.... playing #11 in reverse from 12 tee down to the sea ending at #10 green would be a thrill and a challenge....#9 and 10 play well in either direction....the routing sequence of ocean to inland holes would improve as well.

[paul cowley]

and Adam, Bob, Geoffrey and Patrick, I also miss the old #5....it had just the right balance of quirk and SOB and hard to describe challenge that keeps this an interesting game.

[ForkaB]

I feel Pebble could be improved. I would play #1 thru 8 as they are and then cross over and play #13 thru 9 in reverse, then cross back to finish with #14 thru 18 that would remain the same ..... the green site of #13 in reverse is a better one.....#12 in reverse creates the opportunity once again for an uphill par three replacing the one lost by the renovation of #5.... playing #11 in reverse from 12 tee down to the sea ending at #10 green would be a thrill and a challenge....#9 and 10 play well in either direction....the routing sequence of ocean to inland holes would improve as well.

paul

i've got deja vu all over again....  But, I ike the idea, no matter how many times you say it!

Others

The answer is "OF COURSE!!!"  Pat thinks only of the bad things that can happen (and they do)--but good things can also happen (and they do), which he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge.  And nobody has yet responded to JGAndriole's very pertinent question--Pebble Beach has already been designed "better"--by Egan, Hunter Lapham and Mackenzie) in 1928.

BTW--haven't played the new 5th but loved the old one.  As others have said it had an intoxicating mixture of charm and impending danger.

[paul cowley]

Rich.....I could of said something to the effect that most everything benefits from the idea of continuous improvement [well , except maybe the platypus which has just about nailed it], but Jim asked for specifics and as I find that critisism without offering up a solution is akin to blind agreement to what exists without considering what could of been, so...........I got redundant!

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I think your idea of basically reversing #9-#13 is very interesting, and I think the reasons you give regarding the particular holes are also thoughtful. For instance, I sure never would've thought that the green site on #13 would be better reversed. Why do you say that? What do you think is better about the tee end for a green site? I like your explanation of why #12 would be a better par 3 reversed (slightly uphill) and in probably anyone's opinion reversing #11 with the green-site at the ocean would be a no-brainer. I don't know how many times I've heard golfers say teeing off on #11 at the ocean and going uphill and inland to the green is a psychological let-down. It's sort of hard for me to visualize what #10 and #9 would be like the other way. Doesn't the golfer feel a bit like he's coming downhill slightly on those holes as they are? If so I like that and I wonder how those two would play the other way (slightly uphill?). One thing about those two reversed though is it would sort of balance out the ocean danger both right and left on the entire course better. As it is most all the ocean danger is on the right (other than #18).

Hey, Pat, shit-can your ever-lasting automatic response that a discussion like this is 'mental masturbation' because of lack of some pertinent facts at time of original construction, and your constant harping on the evils of committees that automatically disfigure golf architecture and such. This thread isn't about redesigning Pebble Beach, it's just a theoretical architectural question about whether it could be improved somehow. This website is not a golf architecture redesign company, it's a golf architecture discussion group. We aren't going to redesign Pebble Beach but because we're not that's no good reason not to discuss if the course could be improved. If you think that's mental masturbation then my suggestion to you would be not to contribute to this thread rather than trying every time to quash these theoretical discussions.  

Paul:

Again, interesting thought about reversing #9-#13.