[Tom Huckaby]

Scott - that is a hell of an idea.  I just don't want to be the one to send out the assessments for that.   

Dave - well then I shall just chalk you up as being an east-coast Pebble hater, as several others in here seem to be.  Either that or you are certifiable.   

Huckster:
Must be that I am certifiable .  I do not hate Pebble Beach I enjoy it very much. I just prefer the Shore.  No six hour rounds, No annoying sightseers, No beginning golfers who feel because they payed $475+ dollars they have the right to take 6 hours.
I just like the Shore Course
Best
Dave

Dave - understood.  I've stated several times in here that with those negatives I absolutely understand preferring MPCC Shore (or any course, really)

But do you still prefer the Shore over a 3 hour round with none of those other negatives at PB? 

Just curious how far you take this.  And that's why I asked about being first group off.  If you have done so, well.. that's a couple big negatives out of the way.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I hate to be a contrarian on this one, because I do think that PB is the better course.

But just like you can't scribble out the ocean from Pebble, by the same token the negatives must be factored in when comparing them.  The expensive green fees, the tourists, the slow rounds, the soggy conditions, etc, are all very much realities when one considers a round there and as such must be factored in.

I guess if PB went private and one could then play 4 hours rounds, and not have tourists everywhere, and the conditions were improved, I think then at that point that arguement could be made.

[Dave_Miller]

As one who has played Pebble Beach 20+ times, sorry but I will take the Shore Course every day.

Please state why, is it because the Shore is easier, more receptive to your game, wider fairways, less trouble, no forced carries, no annoying sightseers, please tell why?

Mike:
Pebble gets rave reviews, in my opinion, becasue of the specrtacular views and the fame factor.  Don't get me wrong I do like Pebble I just prefer the Shore.  I feel the Shore course gives more options on playability especially aroundthe greens.
This is a personal preference not an indictment.
Best
Dave

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

I hate to be a contrarian on this one, because I do think that PB is the better course.

But just like you can't scribble out the ocean from Pebble, by the same token the negatives must be factored in when comparing them.  The expensive green fees, the tourists, the slow rounds, the soggy conditions, etc, are all very much realities when one considers a round there and as such must be factored in.

I guess if PB went private and one could then play 4 hours rounds, and not have tourists everywhere, and the conditions were improved, I think then at that point that arguement could be made.

Kalen:  I sure as hell can delete these - I have played the course at least three times when none of that was a factor.  Just because it happens often doesn't mean it happens ALWAYS.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

As one who has played Pebble Beach 20+ times, sorry but I will take the Shore Course every day.

Please state why, is it because the Shore is easier, more receptive to your game, wider fairways, less trouble, no forced carries, no annoying sightseers, please tell why?

Mike:
Pebble gets rave reviews, in my opinion, becasue of the specrtacular views and the fame factor.  Don't get me wrong I do like Pebble I just prefer the Shore.  I feel the Shore course gives more options on playability especially aroundthe greens.
This is a personal preference not an indictment.
Best
Dave

Not to take this too far from MPCC Shore - and this has been discussed ad nauseam already - but why in God's name should things that mean so much to so many golfers not count in a review or assessment?  That is, the views are there, as is the fame.  Why should they not be considered?

Never figured you for a Muccian, Dave.  Hard to believe any Red Sox fan has no soul.

 

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I hate to be a contrarian on this one, because I do think that PB is the better course.

But just like you can't scribble out the ocean from Pebble, by the same token the negatives must be factored in when comparing them.  The expensive green fees, the tourists, the slow rounds, the soggy conditions, etc, are all very much realities when one considers a round there and as such must be factored in.

I guess if PB went private and one could then play 4 hours rounds, and not have tourists everywhere, and the conditions were improved, I think then at that point that arguement could be made.

Kalen:  I sure as hell can delete these - I have played the course at least three times when none of that was a factor.  Just because it happens often doesn't mean it happens ALWAYS.

TH

Fair enough Tom,

But just because your America's Guest, get to play Pebble for mere pennies, and can order the course cleared in front of you by one phone call, doesn't mean all the rest of us "common folk" are so well connected.  

In all seriousness though, just because one can be first off, and take advantage of summer conditions, and play it on a special does not change what the experience is for the vast vast majority of people who play it.


P.S. As to your last post to Dave Miller, I can vouch the man is indeed soulless and loves to see as much suffering as possible from his playing competitors. 

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:

It's far from just me.

Yes, at many times Pebble can have those negatives (although conditions are rarely poor).  So yes, such must be considered in the overall evaluation - I agree with that completely.

I will say though very seriously that there are many times where such negatives do not exist.

THus I remain curious whether the Pebble detractors - and yes you are a detractor if you prefer MPCC Shore to Pebble - attribute this solely to these negatives, or if it is more about the golf course. 

I think it's a fair question.

TH

[Dave_Miller]

Tom,

 

P.S. As to your last post to Dave Miller, I can vouch the man is indeed soulless and loves to see as much suffering as possible from his playing competitors. 

Sandman, Sandman, you cut me to the quick.  How can you call me soulless
Dave

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen:

It's far from just me.

Yes, at many times Pebble can have those negatives (although conditions are rarely poor).  So yes, such must be considered in the overall evaluation - I agree with that completely.

I will say though very seriously that there are many times where such negatives do not exist.

THus I remain curious whether the Pebble detractors - and yes you are a detractor if you prefer MPCC Shore to Pebble - attribute this solely to these negatives, or if it is more about the golf course. 

I think it's a fair question.

TH

As stated before, I think Pebble is the better course, I can't see myself arguing against that.

I can though see why some might say that the crowds, rounds, etc may lead someone to preferring to play MPCC over Pebble...but only for those reasons.

Given both courses are empty, on a Nance-like "sun splashed, breezy, glorious day", there's no way I can't see picking Pebble Beach! 

So damnit...never, ever, ever accuse me of being the D-word again!! 

[Tom Huckaby]

Dave - those who discount matters of the soul simply must not have such.  I know Mucci doesn't.  Im just surprised you take this tack given it's so required to be a fan of that certain dominant baseball team.

Kalen - fair enough.  Again, it's just a matter of how far people take things.

TH

[Mike Benham]

For those that played MPCC Shore, how long did your round take?

And no excuses ...

[Dave_Miller]

For those that played MPCC Shore, how long did your round take?

And no excuses ...

4 hours and 15 minutes

[Tim Bert]

I'm excluding length of play and cost in my unpopular opinion. 

I'm even excluding quality of personal play.  I shot 104 from the short tees on the wide open Shore Course even though I shot 85 the following day at Pasatiempo.  So I didn't fall in love with it because it dazzled me with a good score.

[Tom Huckaby]

I'm excluding length of play and cost in my unpopular opinion. 

I'm even excluding quality of personal play.  I shot 104 from the short tees on the wide open Shore Course even though I shot 85 the following day at Pasatiempo.  So I didn't fall in love with it because it dazzled me with a good score.

What opinion of yours is unpopular, except by me?

Tim, don't kid yourself - yours is the popular opinion in here.

Outside in the real world it might not fly.  But this has never been the real world.

TH

[John Mayhugh]

Bob,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  They got me scrambling around looking at photos (as yet still unlabeled) and the scorecard to refresh my memory.  I confess to not really noticing any of the issues with holes 4 or 16 while playing.  And I liked the green on 9.

From just one time through, it's hard to really judge how the course plays.  But then on the site some of us can also be guilty of judging a course we've never played at all, so I guess once should be enough. 

Taken as a whole (which is really the right way to evaluate it), MPCC Shore is a wonderful course.  And to think some say the Dunes is better?  You're in paradise as far as I'm concerned.

[Kyle Henderson]

I walked both MPCC courses during the Cal Amatuer and played the Shore last summer.

To me, the Dunes was a very good course with some great holes in a lovely setting. #4 #7 #8 #9 #10 and #14 were my favorites (mostly par 3s).

The Shore was in a class above in beyond. It's more unique. The wide fairways and sweeping curves of the Shore Course allow one to play different lines from tee to green in different winds whereas the holes on the Dunes are tighter and straighter. The Shore's "weaker" holes (e.g. #2 # 16 #17 #18) are much better than the weaker holes on the Dunes (e.g. #1 #2 #3 #17), IMHO.

While I could happily play either course on a daily basis, if I were lucky enough to be a member at MPCC, I'd play 70% of my rounds on the Shore course.

[BVince]

Am I the only one is sad to hear the idea of proposing changes to MPCC Shore?  The couse is excellent. 

Are people that unhappy with the course?  Has boredom set in?  What gives?

[Bob_Huntley]

Am I the only one is sad to hear the idea of proposing changes to MPCC Shore?  The couse is excellent. 

Are people that unhappy with the course?  Has boredom set in?  What gives?

Byron,

How did you play the ninth? What tees? Wind in your face? Pin on top?


Bob

[Matt_Cohn]

John,

I think that the ninth hole should be made into a par four and the green blown up.

Totally disagree - I love this hole! Besides, it already is a short par-4!

I think that the sixteenth hole should be made into a par four.

Agree.

I think that the short par four 5th hole's teeing ground be moved back to the current 16th green site. Although a superb short par four with a penalizing ditch to the right of the green, I have seen no one in a serious competition go for the green off the tee.

Can't quite picture it, but I concur that people do not go for this green.

Frankly, I am at a loss to know what to do with the 18th  hole.

Just redo the green. I don't mind the teeshot.


I think that the view from the 11th back tee box is too busy. The delineation between the sixth and eleventh holes is fussy.

I can understand this though I didn't find it myself.


Bob

[BVince]

Bob,

I played the 9th hole with a wind off of the ocean and slightly helping.  The 9th is a brute for sure...but I really enjoyed it.  I tend to carry the ball a long way, so the length wasn't as much of a factor as hitting it straight.  I ended up in the right bunker, failed to get up and down, walked off with bogey.  Frustrated with my performance, satisified by being fortunate enough to play a beautiful and challenging hole.

To me the idea is like changing Van Gogh's Starry Night painting by adding stars or changing the arrangement.  Sure you could do it, but it is not necessary and may ruin the piece. 

I will agree that the location of the 18th hole (especially where it finishes) is not ideal.  It leaves a long walk back to the club house but I am not sure what could be done due to the homesites.

I really do think it is a masterpiece and one of the best walks of any course I have played.

Bryon

[Tom Huckaby]

Byron:

Imagine if you will playing the 9th MANY times.

The beauty would never change, but wouldn't the overkill in terms of brutality get old?

I know it hasn't gotten OLD for me, but I haven't played it all that much.  I do know this, though:  last time there I hit what I thought was a perfect shot, huge 3wood into the wind to back shelf pin... only to have it roll 2 inches too far, off the back ledge, leaving a damn near impossible up and down.  Now that kinda thing would be humorous and perhaps fun the first time.... but wouldn't you think it would get old over time?  I know I walked off the hole ignoring the beauty and rather pissed off at the green.   

Thus I am with Bob and I think this hole would work better as a shortish, risk/reward par four... either that or the green needs to be changed to give some better reward.  Oh, I don't mind quirky greens... heck I love them... but at the end of one-shotters that tend to play 230+ in the prevailing wind, they are a bit much.  And that's the issue I have with #9.

TH

[BVince]

TH,

I understand you opinion and I get why you feel that way.  I personally don't think the hole is particularly unfair thus needs changes.  Its a monster and the hole avg. is probably significantly over par. 

It is different from a member's perspective than from mine.  I don't like the idea of changing a course unless it is in dire need.  Sometime the saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" remains true today.  It is easy to get frustrated with golf and a particular hole, but its all the more reward when you overcome that challenge.  That is what keeps most of us coming back for more.

BRYon

[Tom Huckaby]

Byron:

That is wise indeed.  And well... to me this is all talk - that is, I don't see a change ever really happening, this is kind of just "in a perfect world" discussion"- so in the end I am probably with you.  The hole is not BAD as it is, and likely isn't worth the expense to change.  There is no real dire need.

But if expenses and effort are not an issue - just improvement - well....

I kinda think it would be a better golf hole how Bob suggests.

One thing also:  note I never said the hole was unfair, just that it is a bit much and would get frustrating over time.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Byron:

Imagine if you will playing the 9th MANY times.

The beauty would never change, but wouldn't the overkill in terms of brutality get old?

I know it hasn't gotten OLD for me, but I haven't played it all that much.  I do know this, though:  last time there I hit what I thought was a perfect shot, huge 3wood into the wind to back shelf pin... only to have it roll 2 inches too far, off the back ledge, leaving a damn near impossible up and down.  Now that kinda thing would be humorous and perhaps fun the first time.... but wouldn't you think it would get old over time?  I know I walked off the hole ignoring the beauty and rather pissed off at the green.   

Thus I am with Bob and I think this hole would work better as a shortish, risk/reward par four... either that or the green needs to be changed to give some better reward.  Oh, I don't mind quirky greens... heck I love them... but at the end of one-shotters that tend to play 230+ in the prevailing wind, they are a bit much.  And that's the issue I have with #9.

TH

Tom,

I could be wrong, but I thought the prevailing wind on the monterey pensiula was coming out of the Northwest?  That would make 9 play pretty muich downwind?  I know it switches in the winter to a SouthWest wind and that could be troublesome....

I too think that 9 would work well as a short risk reward par 4!!

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:

I don't recall ever playing that hole in anything but a headwind or crosswind.  But man down-wind might be even worse as then tehre would REALLY not be any way to hold the green.... But my apologies, delete that "prevailing wind" part.  I really don't know.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()