Pebble Beach?

[David Botimer]

Tom,

And that might be what drives a lot of the traffic to PB.  Conversely, the golfers I talk to at Bandon Dunes about PB (alot, comfortably hundreds) say almost to a person they don't care where Tiger and Jack play their golf.  Sooooo, those who don't go more frequently to BD, those who do, go to PB.

As for the view at PB, having lived there two years would agree it's breathtaking, my favorite in the world.  I'd simply rather save the $475 plus ridiculous hotel bill MOST days for the few oceanside holes that afford that view and get it driving 17 mile dr or walking the beach in Carmel.

[Tom Huckaby]

TomH--
I think you miss the point though.  No one is saying that PB isn't a special place to play golf.  Of course the veiws and the history are part of the package and can't easily be removed from the equation.  But this is a discussion group dedicated to the architectural aspect of golf.  And that is where some of the holes at PB fall short IMO and the opinion of others.  Just imagine how good of a golf course could've been built there and how different it would be from the one that's there.  I don't think you can say that about ANY of the other courses that Pebble likes to keep company with...

Joe:  I don't think I miss any point.  People can discuss "architecture" all the want, but that does not change what Pebble Beach is... and what it is is fantastic in every way.  I also don't see really how it could have been built any better; my imagination fails to allow for a better course.  But again, to each his own.

Mr. Huntley asks an important question though... one course is alongside the ocean, the other is true oceanside golf.  And while I love both, I prefer the latter.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

And that might be what drives a lot of the traffic to PB.  Conversely, the golfers I talk to at Bandon Dunes about PB (alot, comfortably hundreds) say almost to a person they don't care where Tiger and Jack play their golf.  Sooooo, those who don't go more frequently to BD, those who do, go to PB.

As for the view at PB, having lived there two years would agree it's breathtaking, my favorite in the world.  I'd simply rather save the $475 plus ridiculous hotel bill MOST days for the few oceanside holes that afford that view and get it driving 17 mile dr or walking the beach in Carmel.

The cost at both places is pretty silly.  Hell I can't really afford either outside of wintertime at Bandon.  But PB does put the S in silly, for sure.

So make this a discussion of golf value and the like, and I'll grant you that PB loses.  It loses to damn near every course as I see it.

But outside of that, well... give me PB any time.  You prefer PD.  Fair enough.  Neither of us is ever going to convince the other.

TH

[David Botimer]

PB vs. PD?  IF you could take away the ocean views on both you'd be left with a pretty mundane PB and a very good PD.  Play them like they lay and PB's ocean holes are some of the best in the world, but the inland holes get REALLY boring fast and the houses and auto traffic circling more than a minor annoyance.  PD like it lies?  What houses?  What traffic?  Best public golf experience in the country and second only to Cypress Point for oceanside golf.

By "oceanside golf" do you mean a view of the ocean or alongside the ocean?

Technically, alongside the ocean, but frankly, one of my favorite spots at Pacific Dunes is the 3rd tee where your first close view of the ocean is, even though the hole is 2 fairways away.

The problem at PB, is for instance at hole 1 where you see no ocean, could be any residential course in the country, and is truly a forgettable hole IMO.

Pacific Dunes comparatively has no forgettable inland holes, and some of the best (e.g. #17) are most memorable.
 
Bob

[Tom Huckaby]

David:

We've covered #1 already in this thread; go back and read if you are interested.  I find the hole quite better than "forgettable."  As for the rest, my issue with PD - and I am loathe to mention this given I do truly love the course, believe me I do - is that while I concur there are no weak holes, there are also none quite as great as #6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 18 at PB... and I might even add 3, 4, 5, and 17 to that list as well.  I suppose #6 at PD can hold it's head amongst those as it is one unique, fantastic golf hole.  13 is pretty damn great hole too, and 16 and 17 are very cool.  But I don't go to PD looking forward to playing any one incredible hole outside of 6... whereas at PB, my heart sings for any of the holes I mentioned.

Again, to each his own. 

TH

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

Give me some time on site and I'm sure I can come up with something better than the first hole.  It is a resort course but one that many deem one of the very greatest in the world.  I don't see it.  I love the wind and weather and think they make for better golf.  I love the views but I only marginally include them in any architectural analysis.  But if I'm going to take the views into account, I have to consider the mediocrity of some holes, the length of time it takes to play the round, the crowded feel on portions of the property due to buildings, roads, parking lots, etc. and the course conditioning.  What draws people to the course takes a toll on the course and the surrounds.

Let me ask again.  Most everyone comments on the small greens and considers them a positive as it maintains the course's difficulty.  Were they intended that way or have they simply been shrinking over the years but overlooked?  Some of the greens, as I've posted before, seem like they were once larger or should be based on the bunkering and surrounds.

[Joe Bentham]

TomH--
I think you hit on a great point.  At Pebble you wait for the good holes.

[Tom Huckaby]

Wayne - I've always been of the opinion that everything that effects the playing of a course matters, and "architectural analysis" is best left to those in the business.  So I'd concur that all the things you mentioned do matter.  I just don't see them all as such negatives at Pebble...I surely never have felt cramped there anywhere, nor does the presence of roads bother me, nor does the time the round takes (remember, I've played it in a leisurely 3.5 hours).  I've also never played it in anything but very fine condition.

Thus you can hopefully better understand my take.

As for the small greens, I really don't know.  I just do know they're always been maddening over the 30 years or so I've played the course, and that's just fine for me.  I sure see them as a very large strength.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

TomH--
I think you hit on a great point.  At Pebble you wait for the good holes.

Whereas at PD they never come?

Just a smartass answer for what might be seen as a smartass statement.

But if you do mean that sincerely and we don't put too much stock in the word "good", well then yes - as Adam has explained, the ebb and flow of Pebble is one of it's greatest strenghts.  That exists at PD as well, interestingly... just not quite to the incredible manner it exists at Pebble.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Mark Fine:

I don't the 1st at PB as a bad hole -- but it's far from being on my short list for interesting starters. Generally, when I play the course it's nothing more than a long iron or fairway metal to begin play. There's no gain in launching anything further down the fairway.

Mark, I like the close proximity to the pro shop but really the opener is really nothing more than a warm-up for what lies ahead.

I do concur with you regarding the greens. I've had the opportunity through multiple rounds during different times of the year to fully comprehend what they provide. Those who only play the course one time really may not be able to fully see the kind of challenges they provide. Some have likely gotten smaller -- but they were never really large from the get-go. Ditto the fall-aways you face if you miss to the wrong side.

Pebble benefits from massive exposure and there's no doubt that the holes along the ocean are among the best in the USA -- frankly, the 7th would be on any short list for short par-3's and one would be hard pressed to have a troika better than what you get with the 8th through the 10th.

The issue for me is how does the course square the fact that there's plenty of so-so holes out there as well.

Mark -- do me a favor -- if you rated PB -- would you include it among your personal top 10?

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:  by asking that question, I gather it's NOT in your personal top 10?  It certainly is in mine, world-wide.

I wonder too if PB benefits from massive exposure, or suffers?  It's right there for the whole world to see, every year on TV.  Like Augusta, everyone's an expert on it, and there is zero mystique, or so it seems.. although those who play it, particularly repeatedly, know better.  In any case, what percentage of the golfing population knows anything other what they've seen in a few pictures about Pine Valley?  Sand Hills?  Cypress Point? NGLA?

I think those courses benefit from LACK of exposure.  People ascribe greatness to them at least in some portion because of the mystique.

This is not to say each course isn't truly great.  I just do wonder whether exposure helps or hurts perceptions of greatness.

TH

[Matt_Cohn]

Are the right hand fairway bunkers on no. 3 new? 

Michael,

I railed on those last summer. They make the course harder for everyday play, but much easier under a US Open setup, where a fairway bunker is a piece of cake compared to 5-inch ryegrass rough. Dumb.

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

I could give a rats off what the average person knows or doesn't know about PB or any of the courses you just mentioned. In many cases -- just like on this site -- you have people pontificating from nothing more than telecasts, photos or at best one singular round.

Exposure, without any real analysis gleaned from years of personal inspection doesn't really matter much to me. I've played PB during different times of the year and have a HEALTHY respect for what can happen when playing during good, so-so and bad weather.

PB is a fine layout and the roster of champions over the years serves it well.

I just don't think the layout is as consistently good as a layout with that high a status should have. When PB is great -- it is very, very good. However, when it lays down and goes to sleep the net result is a number of holes that would induce a long term coma.

When you ask me about ANGC -- I say it's vastly overrated too. The so-called "improvements" were a complete 180 from what the place was originally intended.

In regards to the other courses you mentioned -- I've played them all and can understand why they are thought of so highly. If they received more exposure would that change things. I can't say for sure and neither can anyone else.

Huck, you say it's in your top ten -- well, I'd have to see the other courses you include with it and those that fall below. I admire PB a good deal but to be top ten you would need a layout that has far fewer lulls between the holes of utter distinction. Some may see that as a major strength -- I respectfully disagree.

[JSlonis]

Pebbles length is very interesting though.  Based on yardage alone, I would agree it seems improbable they could ever host a PGA tour event there, much less a major.  But its defended so well at the greens.  In looking at yesterdays final round scores at Pebble, only 5 players shot in the 60s...so I think its still very viable as a championship course.

There may be another factor that makes Pebble longer.  The ball this week did not go very far.  I don't have the stats in front of me, but IIRC Lowery averaged around 267 off the tee.   Pretty sure the guys were hitting it much shorter than they normally average.   

Is that often/usually true at those courses?  Is it seasonal?  If it's true, how much longer does it make the courses play? 

Jim,

The Monterey area is not only at sea level but also has air with a higher than average water content.  So driving is not only shorter due to elevation, but also due to the thick coastal heavy air in the area.  Its likely another reason why PB can hold up just fine to the pros at 6800 yards.

Kalen,

It is actually a misnomer that humid air affects golf balls negatively.  The exact opposite is true.  Humid air is actually lighter than less humid air.  What really affects the golf ball is a combination of cooler air and more air pressure.  There is an increase of air pressure at sea level regardless of the humidity.  This is why guys hit it so far at courses in higher altitudes, the air pressure is less.

On a warm summer day, everything else being equal, you'll hit it farther when the humidity is higher.

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck:

I could give a rats off what the average person knows or doesn't know about PB or any of the courses you just mentioned. In many cases -- just like on this site -- you have people pontificating from nothing more than telecasts, photos or at best one singular round.

Exposure, without any real analysis gleaned from years of personal inspection doesn't really matter much to me. I've played PB during different times of the year and have a HEALTHY respect for what can happen when playing during good, so-so and bad weather.

PB is a fine layout and the roster of champions over the years serves it well.

I just don't think the layout is as consistently good as a layout with that high a status should have. When PB is great -- it is very, very good. However, when it lays down and goes to sleep the net result is a number of holes that would induce a long term coma.

When you ask me about ANGC -- I say it's vastly overrated too. The so-called "improvements" were a complete 180 from what the place was originally intended.

In regards to the other courses you mentioned -- I've played them all and can understand why they are thought of so highly. If they received more exposure would that change things. I can't say for sure and neither can anyone else.

Huck, you say it's in your top ten -- well, I'd have to see the other courses you include with it and those that fall below. I admire PB a good deal but to be top ten you would need a layout that has far fewer lulls between the holes of utter distinction. Some may see that as a major strength -- I respectfully disagree.

Matt:  I don't keep a personal top 10, to be honest.  I just have to believe that if I did, PB would be there.  Why don't you list yours?   Which 10 courses are superior to Pebble Beach?

And I know you don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks, particularly those who just see courses on TV or in pictures or who have played them only once... or less than you.  Got it.  Roger.  Crystal clear.

But that was not my point.  I honestly think courses like Pebble - and Augusta - suffer from exposure rather than gain from it.  You said Pebble gains from exposure.  I disagree.

TH

[Tim Pitner]

If you ask a golfer, "what is the best course in the United States?", the most numerous replies will be Pebble Beach and Augusta National.  To me, that means these courses gain from exposure.  Of course, those probably would not be the answers given by the majority of participants here, but that's another story. 

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim - that's a good point.  But if you ask any golfer beyond those with only rudimentary interest in golf courses the same question, I truly believe the most common answers will be Pine Valley and Cypress Point, with each of Pebble and Augusta having it's flaws cited.  Thus each suffers.

What the hell, it's a pretty esoteric point anyway.  But if it gets us Matt Ward's Top 10 list, then I remain happy to debate it.   

[Jerry Kluger]

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,33250.0.html

I am presuming that the original greenside tree existed when they built #18 at PB  and people are pointing out how it adds to the strategy of the hole and that it had to be replaced because the hole just wouldn't look right without it.  Well here's another hole where they left a tree and nearly everyone hated it.  It certainly adds to the strategy of the hole and there are trees and not houses or hotels in the area. I presume that the tree was left at #18 to force you to play toward the water in order not to be blocked by the tree - where have I heard a disliking of that before?

Are we taking a more lenient view because it is #18 at Pebble? 

[Tom Huckaby]

Jerry:  you'll notice I didn't opine one way or the other in that thread.  But if I had, I'd say also that tree needs to go.  Just remember this is a new course and the choice is thus brand new... I do think it's a different equation when a tree has been there forever and the question is do we remove it now.

I will say this:  I am very open to the idea that 18 PB would be a better golf hole if the tree wasn't there.  I'm not saying I'm completely sold on that, just that I can see the argument.  But since it has been a rather instrinsic part of the hole for forever, I'd just as soon they keep it - that's my point.

TH

[Jerry Kluger]

TH: I can agree with you and it is somewhat like NYC now that the World Trade Center is gone - to me, it wasn 't very good architecture but it became a significant part of the skyline and I miss it. 

My feeling is that some people just automatically want to cut down a tree without ever thinking that it could add to the strategy of the hole - even if it is a bit forced.

[Tom Huckaby]

And Jerry, you are likely quite right about that.  There is a contingent in here who are very much against all trees seemingly no matter what.

[Bryan Izatt]

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,33250.0.html

I am presuming that the original greenside tree existed when they built #18 at PB  and people are pointing out how it adds to the strategy of the hole and that it had to be replaced because the hole just wouldn't look right without it.  Well here's another hole where they left a tree and nearly everyone hated it.  It certainly adds to the strategy of the hole and there are trees and not houses or hotels in the area. I presume that the tree was left at #18 to force you to play toward the water in order not to be blocked by the tree - where have I heard a disliking of that before?

Are we taking a more lenient view because it is #18 at Pebble? 

Jerry,

Just one of many double standards around here, I expect.

Just like buildings down both sides of #1 are not a negative at PB #1, but are at courses elsewhere that don't have the aura of PB.

[Tom Huckaby]

Bryan:

The concept is this:  at any golf course, one weighs all that is there.  What you see as clear negatives at PB others do not - some "buildings" are different than others.  But the main thing is one weighs the positives and the negatives and assesses accordingly.  I believe the positives outweigh any perceived negatives on PB #1; I expect you wholly disagree.  But just because I come out with a net positive does not mean I fail to consider the potential negatives.

TH

[Bryan Izatt]

David:

To each his own, for sure.  I for one look quizzically at assessments that remove views and the like, as I sure don't play with my eyes closed...  and I read everything you wrote and say this:  as wonderful as PD is - and it is wonderful, I've sold my marital soul to go there three times - it's not Pebble Beach, and it never will be.  Well, not until they hold 4-5 US Opens there anyway.

TH

This is the crux of the debate, isn't it? The PB mystique is at least in part based on the views on half the course and by the "major" and even clambake history.  Since PD, for example, will never have a US Open or probably a clambake type of thing, it will never be as "good" as PB.  In ratings it's unlikely that we'll ever divorce history and location from the assessment.  That doesn't mean that indivdual holes at higher rated courses are always good or better compared to comparable holes on lower rated courses.

[Bryan Izatt]

I agree Tom.  Perhaps on that hole my negatives outweigh the postives and vice-versa for you.  That's cool.  As a matter of interest, on an individual hole basis how would you rate PB #1 vs Bandon Dunes #1.  Similar holes.  How would you weigh the positives and negatives of each?  How would it net out?