Pebble Beach Golf Links

[Bob_Huntley]

Sean,

To my knowledge there have never been Memberships at Pebble Beach, so the story may well be apocryphal. From time to time, Sam Morse, or successor General Managers, would grant a card allowing unpaid access to play golf, I had one myself at one time. It would seem as though this may have happened to the occupant of the old stone house, Killarney, that was to the right and back of the eleventh green

Many, many years ago, residents of the Forest could pay $400.00 a year and have unlimited playing privieges. Even the PB Partners pay for their golf these days.


Bob

[Andy Doyle]

Between the golf and the spectacular scenery, I scarcely noticed the houses.

From #10 fairway:


Of course, when you got closer:


At least when the houses were intrusive, they were worth a "Holy shit" in their own right, e.g. right of #14 fairway:


I will say, though, as spectacular as #18 is, I would love to see it with just the lodge in the distance without all of this clutter:


Andy

[A_Clay_Man]

Just recognize the troubling flow issues before and we have no problems.

I did not see troubling flow issues when I golfed the old config. It was what it was. Pebble Beach. Now the new fifth is Pebble lite. Get off on your visuals and your desire to hug the coast, the whole has suffered from the change.

It was you who ackowledged a flow flaw after the new fifth.

The old fifth's teeing ground was right there to the left of #4. What better flow?

Now, you have to traverse a modern bridge, since the powers won't let you play the back tee. You are defending a corporate decison made by people who wont let you play the lower tee on #8. If I were you I would re-evaluate. Those boys are slowly but surely ruining the old girl.

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

I'm beginning to wonder if you are becoming afflicted with a common ailment in here, that is "not reading what someone else writes-itis."

I acknowledged that walking back to the back tee on 6 is a small flow flaw - yes.  But I also said it pales in comparison to the HUGE flow flaw that existed before, that is turning away from the ocean for one hole, only to return to it after a long walk around someone's back yard.  I guess you missed that.

The new fifth's teeing ground is directly in line with how one plays #4.  That's better flow than existed before.  As for what tee I play, hell I chose to play the up one.  I surely could have played the back if I were so inclined.  I just didn't see much of a point in flaunting convention, and traversing a bridge to we didn't mean squat.

You too could just choose to play the up tee on six, if this trek to the back bothers you so much.

And I am defending no corporate decisions - once again, I could give a rats ass who owns Pebble Beach and how they choose to spend their money.  I'm just trying to discuss how best the golf course works, and no matter what you say, you've done nothing to show that it works better as it was before.

Oh well.  If you couldn't see the troubling flow issues with the old #5, then I guess we surely do have different definitions of flow.  And that is just fine.

Adam, we can end this very easily.  Here's one more try.  Just admit you liked the quirky old hole and leave it at that, and we're just fine.  You are really off the deep end with this flow stuff and relating it to corporate decisions and the like.

It's ok to admit one's wrong. I do it all the time.

 

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
Consider the entire flow issue, not just the neat old turn from 5 green past some bushes and on to 6 tee.  That was neat.  But overall isn't it still better as it is now, continuing along the coast as was intended all along?

I think part of the problem is some people see a golf course as a collection of holes (note the silly match play between courses) and others see playing golf as an adventure.

I've only played Pebble Beach three times since the change. I played it dozens of times in the old configuration.

During the planning stages I thought I'd like the new fifth. It just doesn't fit with the rest of the course. The greens at Pebble are small with subtle breaks toward the water, the new fifth green is large and obvious breaks. While the fifth wasn't my favorite hole on the course, it was unique. How many other uphill, blind, dogleg par-3s are there in the world?

And I absolutely hate the flow from the current five to the sixth tee. I think it is a huge mistake in routing to walk backwards. I'd gladly put up with less than stellar holes for a great routing. I liked how Pebble would give you a feeling of being near the water, then let you play it on four, only to then turn your back. Finally you come around that corner and there are some of the holes you will soon be playing ahead of you. Walking from down on the sixth fairway up to the tee, you never get that impact. You never look out and see the sixth hole on all its glory, because you've been walking up it for a while. I always got a thrill coming around the hedge and getting glimpses of so much of the course I would soon be playing. I don't get the same thrill walking up the hill because it doesn't have the suddenness.

I think if the fifth hole property had been available, the sixth would not have been the hole it is. You would have walked off the fifth tee, right over to the sixth tee, probably a two-shotter not a three.

It's possible if one of you did the silly match play, Old Pebble vs. New Pebble, New would win. The individual holes may be better now, but this is one of the reasons the silly match play doesn't work. Because a golf course can be better than the sum of all of its parts.

And I absolutely hate walking backwards on a golf course.

Dan King

So a golf course was never planned. It emerged. And considered as the proper setting for a game, a golf course -- compared with a tennis court, a pool table, a chess board -- is an absurdity. Considered as a move in the Ascent of Man, it is hard to conceive of a smaller, more laboured, step.
 --Alistair Cooke (on early Scottish golf courses)

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

Take a lesson from Dan.  His logic is sound, but basically what it boils down to for him is that he just plain dislikes treks to the back tee, so much as to make that the determiner.

And that's fine.

But of course I will say to Dan these things:

1.  There's a thing called an up tee on 6, Dan - if that trek back bugs you so much, stop at the front tee.  It's still gonna be a three-shotter for you.

2.  To me, the horrid misdirection of the old hole trumps this walk back big time.

3.  Imagine 6 as a two-shotter from a tee just beyond current 5 green, hugging the coast.  Methinks that would have become one of the world's great two-shotters, with an all-world heroic tee shot up the hill.  My guess is if they had the property, that's what would have occurred.  And to me that means TWO improved holes, not just one.  But this is just guesswork in any case.

4. We'll just agree to disagree about the walk from 4-5-6 before and now.  Man all I saw was great coastline going to waste as someone's house, and being forced to play a stupid dogleg par three staring at his hedges.  I just don't see that as close to being better than what's their now, and I understand the majesty of the view from 6 tee.  You seem to like that better delayed... To each his own there.  I prefer the majesty that begins in 3 fairway and continues uninterrupted through 10 green.  We get enough delays on the back nine.  

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE:

I don't care that much about walking backwards on a golf course.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Just admit you liked the quirky old hole and leave it at that

I believe I have done that.

The new fifth's teeing ground is directly in line with how one plays #4.  That's better flow than existed before.

If this is the sole basis for your opinion, it is weak.

1.  There's a thing called an up tee on 6, Dan - if that trek back bugs you so much, stop at the front tee.  It's still gonna be a three-shotter for you.

It is still a backwards trek.

To me, the horrid misdirection of the old hole trumps this walk back big time.

Was this a horrid happenstance before the new hole? Are you on record as saying "That PB sure would be a lot better if five were something totaly different".

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

No, you never did admit that until now.  But well done.  We're almost there.

As for the second point, my statement
The new fifth's teeing ground is directly in line with how one plays #4.  That's better flow than existed before. is just a counterpoint to you saying The old fifth's teeing ground was right there to the left of #4. What better flow?.

Just answering your question.  And if you think that is the sole basis for my opinions here, then I must assume you are suffering from that affliction again.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

As for the late addition of point 3, ok, just admit as Dan has that you hate back-treking, and we'll again be fine.  Because as back-treks go, man that one is tiny if you stop at the front.

So you loved the old quirky hole, and hate back-treks so much such that nothing else matters - not even the very solid logic of continuing flow uninterrupted.

Just say "OK Tom" and this can all end.

Torturing Thomas
 

[A_Clay_Man]

Is that a threat?

Tom, I formulated my opinion of the two holes long before this thread (at least a week). You will never convince me I am wrong, since its mine. All mine. You go ahead and feel you way. It is no skin off me.

[Tom Huckaby]

Now we have another late addition, point four.  I feel like Pat Mucci but these do need to be addressed.  You ask:

 
TH:  To me, the horrid misdirection of the old hole trumps this walk back big time.
 
AC:  Was this a horrid happenstance before the new hole? Are you on record as saying "That PB sure would be a lot better if five were something totaly different".

That's exactly what I would have said before the new number five was built, and I'd bet if Jack Neville were around he'd say the exact same thing.  The old #5 went that way because it HAD TO BE, not because anyone would have WANTED IT TO BE.  An 80-year old error was finally corrected.  And sure it's arguable whether the new hole in a vacuum is better than the old hole - that's always going to be opinion.  But must we be THAT TIED TO TRADITION that nothing can ever be corrected, even this "correction" which has been documented countless times?

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

Of course no threat is intended.  Just trying to have some fun with you.

And of course I too have formulated these thoughts and opinions long before this week's discussion.  I'm just also not afraid to learn, and to have opinions change based on the informed thoughts of others.

So of course none of your opinions can be wrong.  One would just hope you are open to seeing a different way to look at this.

Because my friend, while one cannot argue with one's like or dislikes of a golf hole, one can certainly try to help a friend see fautly logic.  And if you base your opinions on #5 on "flow"
issues, well, let's just say that is difficult to justify - unless you just admit that you hate back-treks to such an extent that such trumps all other issues, as Dan seems to have.

All in good fun.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

One more thing, Adam:

I absolutely acknowledge you as the true and best authority on Pebble Beach we have here, given you have toured it countless more times than anyone else.  In fact whenever questions of Pebble come up, I point people to you.

That's why I am even troubling with this argument.  Because to date, your logic and impressions and opinions have all been spot-on re anything Pebble-related.  Your insights are always fabulous also.

Thus it troubles me that you seem so tied to tradition here that nothing can be questioned.  It just seems SO obvious to me that the flow is better now - and that a long-ago desire for a seemless routing was finally met with this recent purchase - well I wonder what I am missing.  I remain open to education about this....

But man if back-treking to a back tee is all there is, well I just don't get it.  

So teach me - what am I missing?  Or alternatively, just leave this as a personal great distaste you have for back-treks, and then that's Ok also.  I'd just keep that in mind in future discussions of these golf holes.

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
So you loved the old quirky hole, and hate back-treks so much such that nothing else matters - not even the very solid logic of continuing flow uninterrupted.

The flow is not uninterrupted. The walking backwards throws the flow out of kilter. Before that you had a nice walk, in a figure eight pattern, exploring the property. Now you have a forced sludge up a hill to play to ground you've already been.

Dan King

Long before American were regarded as a threat to the British dominance of the game, they had been busy in secret, adapting the golf club itself to their damnably ingenious factory process. The perforated steel shaft, the aluminum-headed putter with a cetre-shaft, the pitching wedge with a slotted face, the sand wedge. In turn they were banned by the British, and in turn they were reluctantly allowed.
 --Alistair Cooke

[JESII]

I don't know, three and four seemed to give just a small taste of the water and the current five does much of the same. A little tease back up the hill might not have been a bad thing. From a routing flow perspective of course.

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan:

Yes, true.  But again, only if you play the back tee is it that much of a forced trudge.  And again, to me, the uninterrupted walk along the coast line is the very definition of solid "flow", to the extent that this back-trek doesn't matter at all.  But again, if one absolutely hates back-treks, then there is not much to discuss here.  But still we can try....

Figure 8 pattern?  Man you lost me there.  If anything the new way preserves that better on the overall - the old way took one curve of the 8 and put a C in it.  And as for exploring the property, man you must really like hedges and backyards!  Me, I always wondered what that missing coastline was like, and I'm damn glad I now know.  But to each his own...

[Tom Huckaby]

I don't know, three and four seemed to give just a small taste of the water and the current five does much of the same. A little tease back up the hill might not have been a bad thing. From a routing flow perspective of course.

Et tu, JES-ay?
 
I guess I'm gonna have to say to each his own on this.  Isn't the very definition of flow that the course continues uninterrupted?  I guess you guys are going to have to define flow for me.  I have postulated before that my differences here could be based on the definition.

BTW, this wasn't a tease back up the hill, it was a trek around some guys' backyard, with his hedges defining OB to the right.  Then one continued around his yard to get back to the sea.  Romanticizing it isn't going to change that it was an unintended, unwanted golf hole.  

TH

[JESII]

I didn't realize I actually typed that, I thought I thought it is all.

[Sean Leary]

Huck is getting mad. Never seen this before.....Chicks dig chubby friendly guys (sic) with an edge.  Go get em..

[paul cowley]

...and another thing that bothered me about the new #5 was that when standing on #4 tee and while playing the hole there is no longer the sheltering vegetive backdrop at 4 green.  It was removed to build #5.

...I loved the way #4 with all its surrounding bunkers was tucked so cozy in the corner....now its just there, naked and shivering in its embarrassment.

go git em Adam...git em for me too  

 

[JESII]

Pat calls that a skyline.

[Tom Huckaby]

 

JES - that's cool.  It is worth contemplating as two damn astute observers - Adam and Dan - did like it.  I recall Mr. Huntley preferring the old hole also, and he's a mighty fine Pebble expert also.

Against that you have little ole me, who has played the course but a dozen times, and in fact only twice with the new number five.

So I am bucking the odds here... But I remain convinced my logic is sound.  The old number five was nothing but an unintended unwanted golf hole - the flow is better now, and it's been made to be what was wanted from the start.

The only current negative is the back-trek from 5 green to the back tee on 6.  To me that is trumped big-time by all of the other positives; to others that's enough to damn the new hole.  Fair enough.

TH

ps - Sean - oh I am far from mad, because these are friends with whom I am having the discussion.  I surely don't get mad at people I've been friendly with for so long... it might SEEM that way but rest assured I am smiling throughout this.

[Sean Leary]

I had forgotten the smiley face, Tom...I fixed it.

[Tom Huckaby]

...and another thing that bothered me about the new #5 was that when standing on #4 tee and while playing the hole there is no longer the sheltering vegetive backdrop at 4 green.  It was removed to build #5.

...I loved the way #4 with all its surrounding bunkers was tucked so cozy in the corner....now its just there, naked and shivering in its embarrassment.

go git em Adam...git em for me too  

 

Whoa.  To each his own there, Paul.  You prefer a guy's house and his hedges to the wonderful coastline.  Not much I can say to that other than I very respectfully differ.

I had no idea houses and hedges were so beloved... this is a learning experience indeed.

 

[paul cowley]

Tom ....as I remember [some 30 odd years ago ], the vegetation was so dense behind #4 green that I don't remember a house being there ....it was mostly cypress and other natural vegetation that surrounded the green very naturally....when I played this summer and stood on the tee it was the second of quite a few jarring visuals I encountered during my round....I stood looking, trying to figure out what is wrong with this picture.

well, I found out on the next hole