[Jordan Wall]

Jordan, Don't get caught up in this hole by hole rating of the golf course.
 Or for that matter, any GC.
 #15 is now the step child. Altered from it's breather status illustrates the detriments of doing hole by hole analysis. The changes there, and to number 3, show a total disregard, or ignorance, in understanding of what makes a great course so. 

BTW #3 was commented on by the good Doctor.

Also, There was an old match on TGC yesterday showing Pebble in either the late fifties or early sixties. PAlmer and Player v. Nelson and Venturi (I think) Palmer and Player got waxed. Seeing the old number five (they hit 5 irons) sure as shootin looked better than that new number 5 and the houses it has wrought.

Adam,

#'s 3 and 15 were two holes at Pebble I did not think were great (not say I didn't like them, they were just not up to the calibur of the other holes). 

As far as #15 goes, I understand the new bunker, though as Tim pointed out to me, it really fails to fit in with the rest of the bunkers.  However, I can see its purpose to guard the left side of what will be a tightened fairway for the US Open.  It will guard the best angle into the green and will perhaps play easier than the long rough of the US Open.


Schmidt,

What don't you like about #4?
I thought it was a great hole.

The hole I liked most that I didn't really expect to like so much was #16.  That bunkering there was fantastic.

[Matt_Ward]

I've had the good fortune in having played Pebble Beach about a half a dozen times over a span of 25 years.

A few points ...

1). The place gets plenty of yearly TV exposure and that can be both a plus to those who don't really know the course and a bit of overexsposure for those who do. In sum -- the great holes are often magnified and the interior holes are not as fully understood for the mediocre roles they play. The opening hole at PB may be the worst starter for any top tier layout I have played.

2). The greens are vastly underrated -- when they are in shape which often is spotty at best (just ask Tiger and assorted others) during the times I have been there and from the comments from those who I respect who have played there a few times. They are very small -- especially pitched and if you miss to the wrong side the probability of being able to up'n and down for a par is remote. When the wind hits 20+ mph you'll have your hands full indeed.

3). No doubt the ocean holes are among the finest you can play. Hard to beat the combo of the 6th, 7th and 8th as the best par-5, par-3 and par-4 combo for three consecutive holes anywhere. No doubt there may be candidates for debate but few will really push the trio I mentioned to the max.

4). One of the best par-5 holes I have ever played is the demanding 14th. Very challenging target to hit -- even with a short pitch. When the pin is cut deep on the left side it takes serious skill to hit it close. Pull it left and you enter Elvis land -- as in deadsville.

5). As much as the folks there have tried -- the course really starts with the par-3 5th for me -- although the rough setup the USGA provided when the '00 championship was there was truly stupid and unnecessary. I don't doubt the changes made at #3 and #4 is a good short hole but it's not one of the best you can play in the States. The 2nd hole is also very weak -- no doubt a reason why the USGA has now decided to play it as a par-4 hole now when the Open comes calling.

I've had the pleasure in playing a number of other top tier layouts that are considered stellar and in the same league with Pebble Beach. I have huge respect for plenty of what it offers but a course of that caliber -- to reach my personal top ten -- needs to have a consistency for greatness with very few substandard holes. Pebble covers its tracks well when it's firing on all cylinders but there's just enough so-so / blah holes that take it out of my personal top ten.

P.S. -- Pebble presents an entirely different perspective when it's wet (early in the season) and when it plays dry (the summer months). I've played in both circumstances and while the former can be fun -- the latter is even more challenging.

[David Stamm]

I think 1, 2, 4 and 15 are mediocre. 

14 is one of the most amazing par 5s I know of.   The green makes a good hole great, IMO.

13 green is a real tester.  I like that hole, particularly becuase it's uphill and clubbing makes for a tough decision -- the difficulty of this decision is accentuated by the slope of the green.  Actually, this same logic applies to 14 green, too.

I think 3 is really cool.  I don't think it's weak at all. 

  But what I'll remember most is the loud laugh that accompanied some of those less than satisfying shots.

I concur with John. While warming up on the putting green yesterday at Pasa I heard Dave hit his tee shot on 1 followed by one of the most hilarious laughs I think I've heard. I wish I could be that good natured after hitting a less than desirable shot!

[Jim Nugent]

I'll give you a hole by hole on a 1-10 scale rating keeping in mind this course is considered one of the very best in the world so the comparisons are with other world class courses.

1.   3:  one of the weaker opening holes of any great golf course
2.   5
3.   5:  I like offset fairways, but there were too many trees on the corner when I played.  Take those down (maybe they are down) and  it would be a bit better, say a 7
4.   5
5.   I have not played the redesign
6.   7:  now it starts getting very good
7.   9
8.   10
9.   8
10.  6 not differentiated from 9 enough for me, so it loses points
11.  4
12.  5
13.  5
14.  7:  it would be lower but for the green, it is excellent
15.  4
16.  8:  there's something about this hole that really appeals to me
17.  6
18.  7:  technology has hurt this hole for the average to low handicap player

I agree with Terry that there are too many weaknesses for this to be a top 10 American course and might well be near the bottom of my top 25, if I had one 

Wayne, could you rate Shinnecock this way -- i.e. hole by hole -- and maybe Merion or Pine Valley?  I'm curious if you give any courses all or nearly all 8's, 9's and 10's.  

btw, your average per hole at Pebble came to 6.12.  That doesn't include number 5, but from what I've heard I doubt it could change those numbers much either way.  Could Pebble even rank in your top 25, given that low-sounding average?  

[Tom Huckaby]

Jordan:  #4 is just a routine uphill muni hole with a pond on the right.  The green isn't very special and neither is the bunkering.  These holes exist everywhere.  It's almost Jans-like in its simplicity.  A big part of the greatness of Pebble is that virtually every par 4  bends a little.  The course begs you to carve your ball around.  Heck, even #15 promotes a draw.  #4 just plays dead straight and is kindof boring.

So no straight hple can be good in your world, sybil?

Love the name... but methinks the "I just want to say a hole sucks to be different" personality just came out.  I want to speak to shivas, who will recognize that a tee shot over (or short of) a cross bunker, an ocean cliff to the right (it's certainly not a pond and yes this does matter, Mr. Mucci), a devilish small green that has caused many a pro to weep, and superb bunkering throughout cannot possibly make for a boring golf hole except if one just wants to be contrarian, or has impossibly high standards.

And since I know you don't have the latter... I shall go with the contrarian personality speaking here.

TH

[Andrew Summerell]

I have always been surprised when I see it ranked within the top 10 of world courses. There are many courses around the world that I would place ahead of it & I would feel more comfortable if it was ranked somewhere in the high 20’s.

For those who love it, where would you place it in world ranking?

[Tom Huckaby]

I have always been surprised when I see it ranked within the top 10 of world courses. There are many courses around the world that I would place ahead of it & I would feel more comfortable if it was ranked somewhere in the high 20’s.

For those who love it, where would you place it in world ranking?

I feel quite comfortable putting it in the world's top 10.  Let's just say that it's tough for me to list 10 courses that are its superior.

But then again, do quite firmly believe that things like views and history and feel do matter.

If one wants to put the Mucci blinders on and make this all about "architecture" (whatever the hell that truly does mean) then who knows where one puts it?

TH

[Tom_Doak]

    I am sorry for starting this argument again ... even if Jordan really started it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom D - 

This has to be in the GCA bottom 10 of most beaten down topics.

I too am ashamed.  I shall retreat now.

TH

[wsmorrison]

3). No doubt the ocean holes are among the finest you can play. Hard to beat the combo of the 6th, 7th and 8th as the best par-5, par-3 and par-4 combo for three consecutive holes anywhere. No doubt there may be candidates for debate but few will really push the trio I mentioned to the max.

Matt, I'm not sure if you mean the order has to be exact, namely a par 5 followed by a par 3 followed by a par 4.  However, if you simply mean one of each par in a three hole stretch, I'd say Merion East 3,4 and 5 surpasses Pebble Beach 6,7 and 8 rather handily.   Pine Valley's 14,15 and 16 are close enough to call even.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't know Tom...

I think we can still get at least a couple more pages of analysis on this puppy.

I understand holes like number 1, 2, and 15 don't live up to a number 8 or 9.  But they are far from dog meat that they are being labeled in here.  And I would submit they are all better than average holes.

If we are using this same logic of the naysayers then 1 and 18 at TOC much be dog meat too cause they are simple plain Jane holes sitting on a flat piece of open field.  Theres alot more to 1 and 2 at Pebble than thier is at 1 and 18 at TOC.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen - I have retreated.  It's all been said before.

But I do post again mainly to say well done, sybil.  Audible yuks. 

[wsmorrison]

Wayne, could you rate Shinnecock this way -- i.e. hole by hole -- and maybe Merion or Pine Valley?  I'm curious if you give any courses all or nearly all 8's, 9's and 10's. 

I will be too, because I never thought about it before.  There's enough Merion on the board, I'll stick to Pine Valley and Shinnecock Hills on a quick and dirty tabulation:

Pine Valley

1.  8
2.  10
3.  9
4.  8
5.  10
6.  9
7.  8
8.  9
9.  10 (left green)  7 (right green)
10.  9
11.  7
12.  7 (with the trees taken down on the left to the proper extent, a solid
13.  10
14.  6
15.  8
16.  8
17.  9
18.  9

Shinnecock Hills

1.  8
2.  9
3.  8
4.  8
5.  8
6.  10
7.  10
8.  8
9.  10
10.  9
11.  10
12.  9
13.  8
14.  10
15.  8
16.  10
17.  7
18.  8

Pine Valley 8.6 and Shinnecock Hills 8.8.  Yep, that's about right.  As for my top 25 (I've never really considered one), would that be American or World (I've only played Casa de Campo and in Scotland, England and Wales)?  I don't think Pebble would make it.  Huck is right, I am a tough grader.

[Andrew Summerell]

I have always been surprised when I see it ranked within the top 10 of world courses. There are many courses around the world that I would place ahead of it & I would feel more comfortable if it was ranked somewhere in the high 20’s.

For those who love it, where would you place it in world ranking?

I feel quite comfortable putting it in the world's top 10.  Let's just say that it's tough for me to list 10 courses that are its superior.

But then again, do quite firmly believe that things like views and history and feel do matter.

If one wants to put the Mucci blinders on and make this all about "architecture" (whatever the hell that truly does mean) then who knows where one puts it?

TH

In Golf Mags last Top 100, I couldn’t place it ahead of Royal Melbourne (West) at 15 or Royal Dornoch at 18.

[tlavin]

In the immortal words of Cosmo Kramer, as he exited the masturbation contest on "Seinfeld", "I'm out!"

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

You see it differently than I do.

PB's 6, 7 and 8 are better than the Merion trio you mentioned. I consider your fascination with the Phliadelphia layout somewhat biased -- but that's your prerogative. Nothing against Merion / East but the California based layout speaks volumes for the holes I mentioned.

You need to also calculate the many different ways that weather can impact PB rather than Merion. On calm days I'd say there much closer to one another but get anything more than 10 mph and the situation changes dramatically.

PV's is also good but PB's is still a good bit beyond in my mind.

I do concur with your overall assessment on SH and PV for what they provide on a cumulative basis but PB when it's at its best for the key holes I mentioned and a few other ocean setting ones is very tough to beat IMHO.

[Kalen Braley]

Jordan,

I was hoping you could give us either a high level comparison of Pebble vs. Chambers Bay or even a low level hole by hole analysis.  It would be interesting to see what your take is on the merits of these two head to head.

If nothing else, it gets this thread going in a new direction as PB has been hashed and re-hashed.   

Kalen

[J_ Crisham]

Has the weather ever been better at a KP event! What a glorious weekend on the peninsula! Can't wait to see what David sets up for next year.

[Andy Troeger]

I have to admit that I believe the inland holes at Pebble are criticized unfairly due to them not standing up the ocean holes that are among the best in the world. Of course holes like #3, 11, 13, and 16 don't measure up to 6-10 for most of us, but I think they match up very well with the middling holes on most of the best courses I've played.

The setting for #3 at CPC is better than #12 at Pebble for example, and the bunkering is more artistic, but are the holes really THAT much different in terms of overall depth or quality? Is #16 at Crystal Downs any better than #2 at Pebble?

I don't doubt there are a few other courses better than Pebble (CPC being one of them), but for my tastes I find it hard to believe there would be very many.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Standing on 14 fairway I look down 6

I love the view from there (actually taken from #15 tee):

[Adam Clayman]

#'s 3 and 15 were two holes at Pebble I did not think were great (not say I didn't like them, they were just not up to the calibur of the other holes). 

As far as #15 goes, I understand the new bunker, though as Tim pointed out to me, it really fails to fit in with the rest of the bunkers.  However, I can see its purpose to guard the left side of what will be a tightened fairway for the US Open.  It will guard the best angle into the green and will perhaps play easier than the long rough of the US Open.

Jordan, You understand the new bunker on 15? Well, that makes one of us. It's purpose, as you state it, is dubious, since the open is only played there once a decade.
The real purpose... was to make the hole play more difficult. It's the worst justification in the history of GCA. The hole was perfect when it provided a BREATHER after the awesome 14th and before the courses climax. Management there has proven to have a zero gca IQ with changes to those two holes. 3 and 15.

Re; The grass outcroppings in the bunker on 6. Why does Pete Dye get away with using such an effect? How about Fownes? There is nothing eye jarring or wrong with those grass islands. They provide a certain unpredictability of  lie, to those who are wayward.

What did you think of the flowus interuptus walking back up the hill to 6 tee?

[Scott_Burroughs]

The 'new' bunkering on #15:

What did you think of the flowus interuptus walking back up the hill to 6 tee?

I have much less of a problem walking back to a tee than the same distance to the next tee
between holes (as in a housing course), as in a walk back, you can leave your bag there and
walk back.  Also, for women, seniors, etc. it's FAR less of a walk, as they have the least amount
of walk back vs. the much farther distance on a housing-type course, where they'd have the
green-to-back-tee distance + the back tee-to-front tees distance to go.

[Carl Rogers]

Is not there a clear distinction to be made between the quality of the property and the quality of the work that the GCA has created?  I would choose to discuss the decisions, challenges and trade offs that the GCA must make on any project.

If all of you could make this clear distinction, would not much of the talking past each other on this site be prevented?

[Matt_Ward]

I guess one of the issues I have with Pebble Beach deals with the exposure situation via television.

The more exposure a course gets can be a twofold result -- some will fawn over what they see because they have not been there to really see if the TV picture matches reality. And the second is for those who have been there -- not just once mind you -- and have been able to fill in their own details beyond what the camera provides.

I truly treasure Pebble Beach but as I said previously for a course to crack my personal top ten it would need to be as near as can be to bulletproof for the full ride. PB has got plenty of ammunition when it's flying high but there's also a number of lackluster holes that keep it from being among the very elite few in the USA IMHO.

[Andy Troeger]

Carl,
There certainly is a distinction between the quality of the land a golf course sits on and the quality of the architecture.

I guess I feel though that the quality of golf course combines the land and the skill of the design so if we're comparing courses you might be able to break them down for purposes of discussion.  IMO, in the end you have to look at both to really evaluate the golf course.

In terms of Pebble, I love the small sloping greens and think they add a fair bit to the golf course.

Matt,
Would be curious what courses make the very top of your list if you get a chance.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()