[Jed Peters]

I've probably played there 7 or 8 times over the years and it wasn't until the last round that I played to my handicap.

Mike

Mike:

What's your handicap?

It's a very hard course for someone who's a 6 or better to shoot their handicap out there.

Conversely, it's very easy for a 15 to shoot their handicap out at olympic as well.

It is a tough scoring course for a better player, but really hard to make big numbers.

[Mike Golden]

I've probably played there 7 or 8 times over the years and it wasn't until the last round that I played to my handicap.

Mike

Mike:

What's your handicap?

It's a very hard course for someone who's a 6 or better to shoot their handicap out there.

Conversely, it's very easy for a 15 to shoot their handicap out at olympic as well.

It is a tough scoring course for a better player, but really hard to make big numbers.

I was a 5 or 6 when I played there over the years.  I'm not denying it can be very difficult, I shot 95 in an interclub match there once, but gets less intimidating after you play it enough to be more comfortable.  I also couldn't play to my handicap from the back tees on a consistent basis, I'm just not long enough.   At the same time, when I was a member at Lake Merced, I could (and did) play to my handicap from the back tees in tournaments and look at some of the scores in the Open Sectional this week-the pin locations weren't even all that tough because of the need to get in 36 holes.

[Adam Clayman]

Patrick, I only seem like a defender because of the bandwagon jumping of so many.
I'll stand by analysis based on my many many rounds there. It's not perfect, but, it is not as bad as you make it out. To prove that, ask yourself this. How did Doak give it a 7, if it's so terrible?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, I only seem like a defender because of the bandwagon jumping of so many.

I'll stand by analysis based on my many many rounds there.

It's not perfect, but, it is not as bad as you make it out.
To prove that, ask yourself this. How did Doak give it a 7, if it's so terrible?

Adam,

Tom Doak didn't give it a 7, he gave it a 5.
He further stated that if they take the fences down he'd give it a 7.

I wonder what his assessment would be today ?
You'll have to ask him.

Tom gave Monterey Peninsula a 6 and a 4 (pre rework)
Pasatiempo a 7, Spyglass a 7, Sherwood a 6, The Valley Club a 7, Torrey Pines a 4 and a 3, The Vintage club a 7,

Firethorn a 7,  Newport a 6.

He gave the Medalist a 7, Mountain Lake a 4, Boca Rio a 4, Pine Tree a 6, LobLolly Pines a 6, Lake Nona a 7, Loxahatchee a 6, Maidstone a 7, Sleepy Hollow a 7, Winged Foot East a 6, Baltusrol Upper a 6,  Essex County a 5,
Hollywood a 7, Mountain Ridge a 5, Plainfield a 7, Ridgewood a 7,  Somerset Hills a 7,  Westhampton a 5, Piping Rock a 6, Fisher's Island a 7, Deepdale a 7, Engineers a 6.

I'll let that array of courses speak for themselves when compared to SB.

SB the equal of Plainfield, Ridgewood, Somerset Hills, Fisher's Island ?

And, better than the others I listed with lower numerical rankings ?

[Mike Sweeney]

To be fair to Tom, he saw Mountain Lake prior to Silva's restoration so he was probably on target from what I hear and he rated pre-Hanse/Bahto Sleppy Hollow when George Pepper was a member and Tom needed work. 

Doak Scale for newbies:

http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/features/the_doak_scale.aspx

[Tom_Doak]

Well, to end the speculation:

I have not played Spanish Bay in 15+ years, but I did go back out there about four years ago and walk around a bunch of holes.  I was trying to find a clump of fescue somewhere, and it took me three full holes before I found some, in the rough left of #11.

I would not give the course a 7 today, and probably shouldn't have originally.  I did it to point out how important the ESA issue was, and of course I was a big champion of fescue and Spanish Bay had tried it.  Unfortunately, I don't think the ownership was ever really committed to making the fescue and firm-and-fast conditions work; I think for them (but not for the architects) it was a calculation to make the permitting go easier, with no intention of follow-through.

However, in ownership's defense, I will say that I've decided over the years it is impossible to have fescue greens just a mile down the road from another course with bentgrass greens, because players can't adjust to the difference and just complain about the fescue until you change it.  It also didn't help that Spanish Bay has some really funky greens contours on a few holes -- awkward and severe.

[Kyle Henderson]

Hopefully an updated version of  The Confidential Guide will eventually be issued (or at least cheaper copies of the original text) so I can read for myself... 

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Huckaby,

I stated that there are some good holes on the golf course.

But, there aren't enough of them given the site.

And while it may be a good golf course in your eyes, I think we both agree, it could have been a great golf course in everybody's eyes.

100% agreement.  I just continue to believe that since it's not going to change, who really cares what might have been?  What purpose does it serve to speculate about such things?  I guess it's an interesting esoteric exercise.... and has some worth in that respect.... but we've beaten it to death already so to me the worth of that has long since gone.

People ask me often:  should I play the course?  Will I enjoy it?

An answer to that concerns the NOW, not the maybe.

SO... in the NOW....

I'd say it's a certain Doak 5, maybe even a 6, because for those not used to such, seaside conditions and views in of themselves are worth seeking out or staying away from home for.   And to me that connotes a pretty darn good golf course.

 What say you?

TH

[Bob_Huntley]

Bob, Faulting the architects because of a social movement to be environmentally sensitive, that came later, is not a fair fight.

If the areas were truly off limits, don't you think there would be piles of balls laying in the esa's?
 My advice, ignore them and play golf.

A funny story happened one night when some king or president of some obscure country was visiting. The secret service was urgently dispatched out to the 15th teeing are where some locals were looking for lost balls using flashlights. A bit of an over-reaction since I doubt many assassins use flashlights when trying to sneak up on their target.

Adam,

Where did  you get the information about ecological sensibilties coming 'later'? Those features were proposed in the first place. Quite frankly, I thought that the shot off the tee at Number 10 was quite one of the dumbest  architectural designs of all time. On a resort course, where some eighty per cent of the players would slice a drive, to place an ESA there seemed rather unwise.

I give you this though, to walk the course in the gloaming is an almost religious experience.


Bob
 

[Adam Clayman]

I do agree with Patrick when he says there aren't enough great holes given the site. If he'd only stated that years ago instead of ranting about matters he usually defends when analyzing other peoples criticisms of other courses he's more familiar. Fiduciary and the architect restrictions come to mind. But the odd one has always been this notion that the reeds on eight, when up and blocking the waters edge, somehow ruins the hole because the water line is blind. Drop areas are provided when one is uncertain if their ball is in the hazard, so what's the problem? How many of the world's great holes have an element of blindness? How is that different from the fronting bunker on 17 at Pebble?
Pat's point on 18 is correct as an anticlimax, but, 17 is no slouch at sunset and when the wind blows.

Back to SB. The Hotel is the cash cow (kings bidding if you will) and as such is the draw and it's placement supercedes the course.  The era the course was built is also germaine to a discussion of the quality. Tom's quirky green comment is true but they are still fun and exact their penalty and rewards.

Bob, I was unaware about the esa's being in place from the get go. When I arrived there in '95 I know I played the course without ESA's, then later, they converted all the green tipped hazard stakes to esa.

[Kyle Henderson]

Pat's point on 18 is correct as an anticlimax, but, 17 is no slouch at sunset and when the wind blows.

As I stated above, 17 is FAR too similar to 15.

[Adam Clayman]

Kyle, Only if YOU define far as the direction and the need to control one's drive, otherwise, the greens could NOT be more different. 17 places a much larger demand on one's approach placement. And the fronting bunkers on 15 is non-existent on 17.

[Kyle Henderson]

Kyle, Only if YOU define far as the direction and the need to control one's drive, otherwise, the greens could NOT be more different. 17 places a much larger demand on one's approach placement. And the fronting bunkers on 15 is non-existent on 17.

I stated that as well on my original post in this thread. The greens are different, and the fairways are angles slightly differently relative to the tees, but one is still hitting the exact same club for the tee and approach shots (if all goes to plan -- at least from the tees I played as they were set that day => according to the website there is a 20 yard difference in total hole length from the blue tees), a pushed drive finds a fairway bunker for both, the greens are elevated to similar heights, and the wind plays the same for both.

15th
http://www.pebblebeach.com/page.asp?id=1276

17th
http://www.pebblebeach.com/page.asp?id=1275

[Bob_Huntley]

But the odd one has always been this notion that the reeds on eight, when up and blocking the waters edge, somehow ruins the hole because the water line is blind. Drop areas are provided when one is uncertain if their ball is in the hazard, so what's the problem? How many of the world's great holes have an element of blindness? How is that different from the fronting bunker on 17 at Pebble?

Bob, I was unaware about the esa's being in place from the get go. When I arrived there in '95 I know I played the course without ESA's, then later, they converted all the green tipped hazard stakes to esa.

Adam,

At PB's 17th hole you could see that there was a green behind the bunker. The last time I played the 8th at SB (admittedly a long time ago) the reeds were as high as an elephants eye and it was all guess work playing the shot. Okay, Lahinch has the blind three par but it is without a water hazard
that could really ruin your day.

I think I played SB back in about 1987 and there sure were ESAs around even then.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

I do agree with Patrick when he says there aren't enough great holes given the site. If he'd only stated that years ago instead of ranting about matters he usually defends when analyzing other peoples criticisms of other courses he's more familiar. Fiduciary and the architect restrictions come to mind.

I stand by my original positions.[/color]

But the odd one has always been this notion that the reeds on eight, when up and blocking the waters edge, somehow ruins the hole because the water line is blind.

Drop areas are provided when one is uncertain if their ball is in the hazard, so what's the problem?

The problem, which you've never been able to see, just like the green and water on # 8, is that a perfectly executed shot can end up in the water because the flag was placed next to it and the golfer has NO IDEA that there was water so close to the flag.

The golfer can't determine if the flag is on the left, right or center of the green, nor can he determine where the water is.

That's bad architecture and a bad hole.

To state that there are drop areas available is beyond absurd.
As if that negates the stupidity of the hole and the lack of definition between the features when a nearby water hazard is so in play.
[/color]

How many of the world's great holes have an element of blindness?


None that I know of where WATER is right next to the green, fronting and flanking it so that the golfer can't determine where the green begins and the water ends.

Can you name any others like that ?[/color]

How is that different from the fronting bunker on 17 at Pebble?


Shirley, you jest.
If you have to ask that question, you clearly don't get the distinction.[/color]

Pat's point on 18 is correct as an anticlimax, but, 17 is no slouch at sunset and when the wind blows.

Back to SB. The Hotel is the cash cow (kings bidding if you will) and as such is the draw and it's placement supercedes the course.  The era the course was built is also germaine to a discussion of the quality. Tom's quirky green comment is true but they are still fun and exact their penalty and rewards.

Bob, I was unaware about the esa's being in place from the get go. When I arrived there in '95 I know I played the course without ESA's, then later, they converted all the green tipped hazard stakes to esa.

It's my understanding that the ESA's were there from the get-go.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()