Weak holes at Pebble Beach

[Bob_Huntley]

Ian,

Yor wrote "For example Merion has 3 par threes in the same direction despite being virtually flawless as a course. I still think it's a 10 - but three threes in a row in the same direction is not ideal."

Ian, why on earth would that make a difference? Suppose a course had Cypress  Point's 15th and 16th hole then followed it up with Pine Valley's 5th, would this detract one iota from the whole?


Bob

[Sean_A]

Tom,

There isn't a perfect course in the world. There's always something that you come to question in even the most clever of courses.

For example Merion has 3 par threes in the same direction despite being virtually flawless as a course. I still think it's a 10 - but three threes in a row in the same direction is not ideal.

You can find some fault or weakness with any great course. Pebble has more than  a few and more than the other courses which are a 10 on Tom D's list.

Ian

I find this comment odd as it relates to Merion.  Sure, three par 3s head in one direction, but all three holes are so different that I can't imagine this being a drawback.  In a way, its a miracle of clever design that these three holes don't seem as though they head in the same direction - probably because each one rests on distinct sections of the property.  I bet folks need to look at a course map to realize that that they do head in the same direction.   

Ciao

[Anthony Gray]

   Ian,

  Excellent observation! In all professions it is the small details that make one more succesful than others.

  Why would this be considerd a small imperfection? I am assume the wind.

[Matt_Ward]

Jordan:

I spoke directly to the issue of the 12th hole itself. I simply provided -- for your benefit -- some sort of context as to the nature of other issues I had mentioned previouly -- especially in response to what Rich G had said about the 12th hole. Do yourself a favor and read it to get an idea on the response I drafted in regards to his comments.

You see the other par-3's at PB being world class -- I won't go as far as that. The 5th is a much improved hole and Jack Nicklaus and his team need to be saluted for that. Hopefully, the USGA will stage the hole in a proper manner rather than the way they forced it to be during the last US Open there.

I love the 7th -- no argument there. The 17th is somewhat too demanding for the length of shot required. If played from the extreme tips - in the range of 220 yards -- it is next to impossible to play for nearly all players (no matter what Jack did there in the final round in '72). It's still a superb hole and my hesitancy in saying world class is because of the other par-3's I have had the pleasure in playing in my lifetime.

The 12th is, as Doak mentioned in CG, a "mutt." There is no element with the hole that adds to the experience when playing there. We won't be agreeing on that dimension -- so be it.

I never used the word "bad" Jordan when describing it. It's simply ordinary -- vanilla. What I did say is when a course is considered for a 10 score -- it needs to be air tight in almost all ways. That doesn't mean each hole must be all-world in its own right. But each should have the capacity to 'ADD' something to the time when playing there.

I have mentioned my huge respect for certain holes at PB -- but the proponents of PB seem to believe that there isn't a real dropoff in terms of quality with many of the non-ocean-based holes. In m mind, there is and with that recognition comes a slight drop-off in terms of its overall standing for me.

Jordan, another point -- keep in mind, I said a number of the non-ocean holes are lacking -- NOT -- each and every one of them.

The 1st is a dud -- c'mon let's stop with the inane belief that's it a super starting hole. The 2nd is equally a dud -- in fact -- the USGA had to change it's par designation to beef up the hole when the last Open was played there.

The 3rd has been altered recemtly but it's simply a decent hole -- better than the first two but certainly not a great one.

The 4th is a solid short par-4 and I've mentioned that previously.

The stretch of holes from #5 thru #10 is solid and AGAIN I have said that with the likes of the 6th, 7th and 8th hole combos.

The 11th is another so-so hole -- akin to the likes of #3.

The 12th is what I mentioned previously -- you like the 13th -- to me it's nothing more than a empty hole that is helped considerably by a green that has a harsh slope from right-to-left when approaching it. I do like the 14th and have no disagreement there. The 15th, you conveniently missed, is just blah big time. The 16th is a good hole -- both on the tee shot and most certainly with the approach.  

The 17th and 18th are also well done in their own right -- although I think the 18th is a bit overrated -- but no doubt still a thrilling climax to the day there.

One other thing -- I NEVER said that what happened int he '72 US Open is the be-all / end-all nature in putting such a tag on the layout.

I simply inserted into the equation based upon what someone else said earlier on in this thread. Try to read the preceding posts to see what someone else said before jumping into the pool and making a splash about what I said in response to them.

Jordan, everyone can certainly have an opinion -- the issue is whether such opnions are informed ones or just simple stubborness in not seeing the possibility that others who might have played / seen a greater array of courses and can somehow provide a bit of context to the overall discussion.

That doesn't mean such opinions, even from such sources, should be given a green light in all such responses, but understanding how different courses from across the globe stack up against one another allows for a better application of final rating numbers.


 

[Adam Clayman]

Dr. Mackenzie's impression of the third should be taken into account when weighing Matt's comments.

[Anthony Gray]

 


   If the12th played shorter say from 150, would it make it a better hole?

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

There isn't a perfect course in the world. There's always something that you come to question in even the most clever of courses.

For example Merion has 3 par threes in the same direction despite being virtually flawless as a course. I still think it's a 10 - but three threes in a row in the same direction is not ideal.

You can find some fault or weakness with any great course. Pebble has more than  a few and more than the other courses which are a 10 on Tom D's list.

Ian - OK, gotcha.  Fair enough.  Again, I tend to disagree about the volume of "weaknesses" and feel what others perceive as weaknesses tend to work as overall positives for the course as a whole, but we can chalk this up to just differences in perception.  At least I do understand better how you see things - you worried me with all of this talk of perfection.   

[Jordan Wall]

Matt,

Certainly we are just going to have to agree to disagree on some cases.

You'll notice I never said a word about the 1st hole because I agree with you as far as it's blandness.  It is not a bad hole, per say, but it does nothing to spice up the course.  However, just because the USGA changed #2 into a long par-4, well...that has nothing to do with the hole itself except to say that it is not long enough to be a true par-5 for the top players in the world.  Like I said, it is more personal preference for me on that hole, but I think it has some wonderful features, including that bunker 60 yards short of the green.  Again, this is a case where it is not the best hole on the course, but it is not a weak one.

I agree with you on #'s 3 and 15.  The reason I didn't bring them up was because of that.

As sort of a side note, I think 16 is one of the best holes on the courses.  I love the cavernous bunker that stretches through the ravine in front of the green.  The tee shot is quite challenging, even when played with a long iron, due to the strong fairway cant.  The green has tons of slopes and offers lots of recovery shots.  I find it to be a superb and one of a kind hole, and that is hard to come by nowadays.

I am not disagreeing with you on all parts of the course.  Certainly you have played much more than me and your wealth of knowledge to golf courses is far superior to mine.  However, I just question your basis in the determining of #12 as a weak hole.  In the midst of all the great holes at Pebble Beach, it is certainly easy to pick out ones not on the ocean and call them weak, because they are not equal to some of the other great holes.  However, I really like the 12th and while I have admitted it to not being the best hole on the course by any means, I think it's options off the tee, varied recovery shots around the green, and fine bunkering are all elements that make it a good, original hole.

So, Matt, I fully am aware you have played more courses than I, and thus your opinion to what is a good and bad holes is different then mine, however, I still believe there needs to be a good basis of belief for that opinion.  I do not believe backing up an opinion by referring to what other people think, or to tournaments that happened long ago (actually, tournaments in general as they do not define a course at all), is a good basis to personal opinion.

Anyways, I am done with his issue.  I know how you feel and I know how I feel, and I respect your opinion for what it is, despite how you conclude it.  For me, Pebble Beach is and always will be a 10.  It is truely a magical place.  To be able to close your eyes on know your are standing where the best players that ever lived were standing and playing from at one point - and you get to hit that same shot...well, that is truely special.  The ocean, the aura, not to mention the golf course, it's just perfect to me.  Pebble Beach will always be a 10 to me.

Cheers,
Jordan

[Tom Huckaby]

Jordan:

Exceedingly well said and I certainly agree with darn near all of it.

I just wouldn't give in and say #1 is bland - that is one of the world's great ass-tightening tee shots, and the green is maddening in it's subtle ability to extract pain; and

re-read what Adam said about #3.  If that is "simply a decent hole" than I'm Oprah Winfrey.

And I am not Oprah.

It's a magical place indeed.  Seems a shame no many want to focus on perceived warts.  It will always be a 10 to me as well.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I wonder how many golfers play # 3 from the back tee, next to the road ?

It used to be a challenging tee shot and hole.

As to # 1, I think it provides "jitters" similar to # 1 at Merion.

And, I always loved # 2, I think it's a wonderful hole.

What I can't figure out is why all these 5, 20, 15, 20 and 25 handicappers context the play of the hole in the narrow realm of PGA Tour Pros.

I also wonder how many golfers, after putting out on # 1, walk back toward # 1 tee to get to the back tee on # 2.

I think it's a wonderful hole fraught with architectural challenge on the drive, second shot, approach and recovery.

I'll also bet you that if green fees were equivalent to those at Bethpage Black, it would be called one of the, if not THE greatest course in the world.

In reviewing and analyzing the criticism of PB, I've come to conclude that most critics of Pebble Beach suffer from the "Tom Huckaby Snydrome", and that is:  "If you can't see and be next to the Pacific Ocean it can't be that great of a hole"   

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

FYI -- I've played PB six times in my life and each time was from the tippy tip tees. 

Jordan:

Fair enough.

My only final point is that PB may indeed be a ten for you based on the sampling of courses you have personally played. I don't know which other courses you have played. In my mind, a sampling size of courses is important because it puts into some sort of context the range and diversity of courses one has played and it provides a depth for a greater range of comparisons and contrasts from which to draw from.

You harp on how I have concluded my thoughts on this subject. I've drawn reference to past tournaments, different people and other source material to demonstrate what has happened over the course of time. It just seems magical how those who see PB as being a 10 can do likewise from their own experiences and those circumstances are then determined to be relevant but others are not. So be it for consistency on that particular front.

Frankly, I've been more than fair about my comments on PB. It seems those who see it differently want people like me and others to walk a total lock step in this regard. That's not likely and candidly I and a few others have spelled out in great detail what we see as the different side of the same coin. I've been quite effusive on any number of key holes at the course and hold the place in a very high light. Just not as high as you and a few others. Nuff said.

[Rick Shefchik]

I'll also bet you that if green fees were equivalent to those at Bethpage Black, it would be called one of the, if not THE greatest course in the world.

Patrick,

I think those are the truest words written on this thread. Substitute "Lawsonia" (which I really love) or "Wild Horse" (which I also really love) and you'd still be right.

[Adam Clayman]

The lack of articulated justification for why the holes are weak are suspiciously absent from the regurgitated tour de forces. I salute Jordan for his efforts and awareness after what I assume is one play.     Jordan, the lesson applicable is that its not how many experiences you go thru that's important its how you get thru them.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Huckaby,

I wonder how many golfers play # 3 from the back tee, next to the road ?

It used to be a challenging tee shot and hole.

As to # 1, I think it provides "jitters" similar to # 1 at Merion.

And, I always loved # 2, I think it's a wonderful hole.

What I can't figure out is why all these 5, 20, 15, 20 and 25 handicappers context the play of the hole in the narrow realm of PGA Tour Pros.

I also wonder how many golfers, after putting out on # 1, walk back toward # 1 tee to get to the back tee on # 2.

I think it's a wonderful hole fraught with architectural challenge on the drive, second shot, approach and recovery.

I'll also bet you that if green fees were equivalent to those at Bethpage Black, it would be called one of the, if not THE greatest course in the world.

In reviewing and analyzing the criticism of PB, I've come to conclude that most critics of Pebble Beach suffer from the "Tom Huckaby Snydrome", and that is:  "If you can't see and be next to the Pacific Ocean it can't be that great of a hole"   

Patrick, I couldn't agree more.... with almost all of it, that is!

I too find a lot to like on each of 1, 2 and 3.  On 3 though I worry about the new fairway bunkers - those to me seem to be a net negative in the end.  But it's still a wonderful hole, and remains a difficult one, particularly from the back tees.  Ask Tiger  Woods, who in the course of that huge US Open win took a 6 on this hole.

Now as for that syndrome, well... interesting you'd name it after me given my #1 course in the world is about as far from an ocean as one can get.   

As for the cost effecting things, well of course that's not the case re Matt, for whom the next time he pays a green fee will be the first.     But of course that does have effect on most people, and I think rightly so.  Cost does matter.  And this is one of the most expensive courses on the planet.  SO people hold it to standards they don't for others... I can live with that.  You're right though that IF the fees were reasonable, I bet a lot of complaints would vanish.

BTW Matt, I've been around a bit, and it remains a 10 for me.  And no one wants you to march in lockstep, we're just trying to get you to see the error of your ways.

But of course I know very very well the futility in that,given you STILL haven't admitted your very simple error in not knowing how Doak had clarified the definition of a 10 on his scale.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Adam said, "The lack of articulated justification for why the holes are weak are suspiciously absent from the regurgitated tour de forces. I salute Jordan for his efforts and awareness after what I assume is one play. Jordan, the lesson applicable is that its not how many experiences you go thru that's important its how you get thru them."

Read your last post -- what a bunch of baloney.

The so-called "regurgitated tour de forces" have spelled out in great detail the elements / lack thereof of the non ocean holes. The "articulated justification" has been stated in detail.

If my memory serves, you were the guy who challenged me on my memory of the 12th hole and I provided it in a complete and thorough manner. It's you who is simply blathering on and on about your own self absorbed opinion but never once conceding another take might indeed be possible and even defensible.

I've spoken quite highly about PB and have said so in complete sentences and with great time and care. I simply don't march in so some sort of narrow drumbeat that you see as the only idea on what is and what is not present at the course in question.

I'll say this again in the event you may not understand what I said previously -- the range and diversity of courses one plays does add a database from which to draw from when discussion takes place. A person who has a narrow base of courses may in fact see a course or courses as being quite good -- in fact, even excellent to the point of meriting a ten score. I don't doubt that a person may see that as a ten FOR THEM, but when others opine who have had the advantage of having seen and played a wider range and therefore the applicability of such numbers can be very different and as a result comments coming from such sources may add a bit of perspective that others may not have.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

I assume that was directed at young Jordan.  And I will say this - it was kind of unfair of Adam to say what he did in his last post.  I think you articulated your issues just fine.

But again you trot out the "I've seen more courses than you, so I know more" argument.  That is regurgitationus maximus.   

Well Matt, you have seen more courses than damn near anyone on earth.  So you do have a very wide base on which to make your comparisons.

But that doesn't make your opinions any more valid than young Jordan's...or Adam's... or mine.

And you know, each of Adam and I have been around.  We each seem to call Pebble a 10.

And another on here who in fact has been around more than you have calls it a 10 also.....

HUNTLEY.

You don't see it as a 10 and that remains just fine.  Others agree with you.  Heck I can understand it.

Just don't belittle the opinions of others with this "narrow base of comparison" stuff.  That's not only tired, it's way too argumentative.

TH

[Adam Clayman]

  And I will say this - it was kind of unfair of Adam to say what he did in his last post.  I think you articulated your issues just fine.

Huck, Justifications architecturally, emotionally, or, spiritually as it relates specifically to the 12th hole from Matt Ward are absent. I encourage you to re-read the comments made and see that there is no analysis there, only condescending unjustified barf.
 I've tried to copy most of them here. Picking out almost every comment made on the 12th hole.

Chip says;”12 is the weakest on the course.  from the back tees it requires a mid iron (long iron for me) to a green that simply doesn't seem to hold shots unless you can hit them Greg Norman high.  even if it did, it doesn't seem to be a hole on a "10" course to me.  Its either in the front bunker or long in the rough.  ZZZzzz"

Pat responded  “Again I'm puzzled by not knowing what's weak about the hole.

Are you talking architecturally, or from a scoring perspective ?"

Tom Macwood says “The 12th is the most disapointing hole for me, but of course that
is relatively speaking."

David Elvins says “I thought the fronting bunker and small green seemed ridiculous for a par 3 of that length.  Of course, I  didn't play it so am open to the opinion of others."

Scratch writes ‘The 12th hole is atrocious by any standards... in other words... on any golf course, not just in comparison to the world class holes at PBGL.

Any par-3 where the green cannot be held by 90% of the best players in the world (unless it's been raining for three days and they play the front tees) would be described by me as awful.  Place a hole like the 12th at PBGL (without fixing such clearly lame design), and it becomes even more of a travesty."

Bob H says “Now we come to Number 12. It is not my favorite  but to dismiss it as a nothing hole is a mistake. It requires you to hit a slight draw at the right front opening. For the accomplished player this should not be too difficult. at its longest it cannot measure but 190 yards.  Look back to Tom Kites shot when winning the Open, it just requires some modicum of skill."

Jordan says “I dont see everybody's problem with #12 either.  Since most people shouldn't be playing the back tees anyways, that makes the hole play 170 yards or less, and quite a bit downhill.  The green is not impossible to hold, especially from that distance, and especially with the extra heighth the downhill brings to the shot.  Yes, I happened to find it one of the more taxing shots on the course, but not every shot needs to be easy.  If you dont believe you can hold the green then there is a sufficient gap to the right which is easy enough to use.  The bunker in front of the green makes the shot particularly fun - do you go for that gap or test your skills to the fullest and try and hold the green??  I find it to be a pretty good par-3.”” The 12th is a good golf hole.  Not every hole is supposed to be a birdie hole, and this is such a hole.  If you can get over your ego and simply play to the front right, through the gap, then you have more then a legitimate chance to hit the green and make par.  Nobody said golf was supposed to be easy...the 12th is a pure test to see how good you can really hit the ball, and how well you are thinking.  Why it certainly is not the greatest par-3 in the world, it is not weak by any standards."
“”Your basis for it being the worst par-3 on the course, while true, is not a good one to back up the hole being a weak one.  The three other par-3's are all world class and it would thus be hard for any hole to compare against them.  The 12th presents its own dilemnas, and while perhaps not equal to those of the other par-3's, it is nonetheless original and solid in it's own right.  I do not deny it to be one of the weaker holes on the course; however, that does not make it a bad hole.”” However, I just question your basis in the determining of #12 as a weak hole.  In the midst of all the great holes at Pebble Beach, it is certainly easy to pick out ones not on the ocean and call them weak, because they are not equal to some of the other great holes.  However, I really like the 12th and while I have admitted it to not being the best hole on the course by any means, I think it's options off the tee, varied recovery shots around the green, and fine bunkering are all elements that make it a good, original hole.”

David Stamm says “I can see how some don't think much of 12, but I wouldn't call it weak.

Matt W says “Doak's take on the hole still fits for me -- "The par-3 12th is a real mutt." (source: Confidential Guide).” “Scratch Nathan's assessment of the hole is right on target. It's one step short of miniature golf because luck, far from skill, is the more important ingredient when playing it.” “My point then -- and now -- is the 12th is often doctored to do the things it does. Reject good shots when hit and provide no real distinction between the good, not so good and the terrible”” I'm plenty aware of the 12th hole (played the course no less than half a dozen times) -- the nature of how it plays -- wind elements that matter when playing it, angle of attacks, -- etc, etc, etc.“
”When a player makes the perfect shot and you get silly bounces to the point where no shot of any type can be played then you don't have golf you have gotcha.

The 12th - if properly set-up can and does hold approach shots. Jack's that day should have received a far greater reward than it did.

I don't expect greens to be receptive to just any shot but if you saw / watched the shot Jack played that day his reaction and the resulting scowl to P.J. Boatwright spoke volumes.

You ask about the 5th at PV and the 12th at PB -- two completely different holes. I never said one must play a par-3 via the aerial route alone -- but Jack's shot that final round day in '72 was more than sufficient to have been air-tight.”” The situation with the 12th was not an error on Jack's part -- it was because of the base inconsistency of the greens themselves that final day. Some held -- others did no”” You say the 12th is a good golf hole. How so? What makes it unique -- when you size up all the other par-3 holes at PB the 12th is dead last - not even close when 5,7 and 17 are calculated into the picture.

The 12th is merely a bystander when overall greatness at PB is really analyzed. You sarcastically throw forward the inane idea that people should "get over your ego" -- that's not the issue Jordan -- the issue is whether the hole adds anything of note to the time when playing PB. I don't see that it does and you'll likely say otherwise. So be it”” I spoke directly to the issue of the 12th hole itself. I simply provided -- for your benefit -- some sort of context as to the nature of other issues I had mentioned previouly -- especially in response to what Rich G had said about the 12th hole. Do yourself a favor and read it to get an idea on the response I drafted in regards to his comments.“
”The 12th is, as Doak mentioned in CG, a "mutt." There is no element with the hole that adds to the experience when playing there. We won't be agreeing on that dimension -- so be it.”” The 12th is what I mentioned previously”

Kalen says “12 very well may be a par 3 green that most mortals don't dare try to shoot at from the tips.  But using this same logic, isn't #5 at PV also a hole that fits the same criteria?  Is its a lesser hole because most can't hit it on the green in regulation?

Weak is the argument presented on the weakness of the golf hole.

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

Sold.  I was just being such a hardass to Matt, I figured I'd toss him a bone.  But you've proven to me he doesn't deserve that either.

 

[JESII]

I don't believe much, if any, of the deeply analytical dialogue thrown around on this site. To me, if you stand on the tee, fairway and/or green of a hole and it occurs to you that this is a good or great hole then it is. There is no formal analysis of an opinion.

So Adam, when I stand on the 1st, 4th, 11th, 12th and 17th holes I surely don't think...wow, this is a great hole...13 and 15 seem lacking to me as well, but I cannot put a finger on it. Are they fundamentally bad holes? I wouldn't say that. But they sure are not carrying any water for the rest of the course.

You guys have basically verified the position by saying the course is (or can be) still a 10 with an "ebb and flow" of holes...well I'm not sure if it's the ebb or the flow, but when the context of a discussion is "Weak holes at Pebble" I am inclined to look at the individual holes and there are some that do not hold up...I would venture to say neither Pine Valley, Merion, Shinnecock nor Royal County Down have that...and they are my top 4, in no particular order.

For what it's worth, Pebble would be close behind those if I were to rank my favorites.

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Talk about what's deserved ? Hello -- anybody home here ?

Thanks for being so kind in throwing me "a bone." Love when people give me something then just as qucikly pull it back off the table.

The issue of seeing and playing vast range of courses is a dynamic that is appropriate to any discussion. If some feel it's unfair my answer is a simple one -- do the legwork and see firsthand the kind of exposure one gets from having the wherewithal to have such a database fresh in your mind. I don't need to base my accounts solely on photos or third hand accounts that some on GCA do. Does that make my assessments 100% correct? No. But it does provide me with a bit more validity because of the personal connection and the wherewithal to see how courses fit or don't fit when held up against one another.

Some folks here on GCA have an inferiority complex because instead of saluting the fact that certain people have seen and played more courses and therefore can opine personally on what they see as the plus and minus of different courses -- are then belittled as ego maniacs because of these experiences.

I don't take a similar tone / response to people who have played elsewhere from places I have not been. No doubt there are people who have played a good bit layouts than I have. That's great! I see that as a learning tool for me -- to better appreciate the fact that those folks have indeed covered such ground and can add to MY OVERALL UNDERSTANDING of just what they have done. That's what Doak did with such books as "Confidential Guide" -- providing some sort of personal connection to the vast array of courses out on the planet.

Huck, please nuff of the inane statement -- with your constant misrepresentation that I said or implied that just playing courses alone suffices for sound analysis. Never said that. I've always said --and did so with Jordan -- that his applying a ten score to PB may be fine for him given the range of courses he has played. I've played PB no less than a half a dozen times -- that doesn't make my thoughts to be 100% correct. I also have played a far more generous listing of courses than many here and I think it does give me a broader playing field from which to draw comparisons and contrasts. It doesn't mean my opinions are gospel like or anything close to that. My comments are simply that -- mine.

But learning from each other is a two-way street. I praised PB in a number of areas and a few people have seem to forgotten that I have been rather balanced in my net assessment of the course. What I take issue with is this silly idea that everyone must then walk in lock step because people see the course as a pure 10.

Life is about experiences that have been felt firsthand. It does help my understanding of how individual elements (certain courses) fit in terms of how they stack up against other courses. If people want to blow that off as bragging or some such other silly attribution then the real issue is one they should look in the mirror to find.

I concur w Jes II -- the "ebb and flow" argument somehow provides a nice spin maneuver of simply saying that when good PB is outstanding but there are other moments of time when the course is much less so. Do a number of the non-ocean based holes "carry water for the rest of the course?" I don't see that a number of them do and when the benchmark of greatness is THAT high when you talk about a score of 10 then some grading down is bound to happen for people like me, Jes II and likely others. Simple as that.

Adam:

My reasonings have been stated -- upteen times. Nice of you to cherry-pick only one of my comments -- you must have forgotten the others. Typical though considering the source at hand.

You're the guy who challenged me on my memory of the 12th hole / re: 1972 US Open and I backed it up. Still waiting from you to admit you jumped into a situation in which you know little about. My referencing that situation started from what Rich G posted and I simply added to that specific point for the purposes of both clarification and updating. Nothing more.

Then you decided to enter the situation and started to do your predictable barking to me about how others likely don't get it but YOU do.

I've played the hole no less than a half a dozen times and then you insert the phrase -- "Well, do you punk" (post #83) into the discussion when I added the account from Dan Jenkins to support my original response to Rich. That's wasn't good enough for you -- you then opted for the sandbox response -- that's great for juveniles -- not a forum of this type.

When you utter the comment of "condescending unjustified barf" -- be sure to check out all your brilliant comments on this thread - I've stayed on task and tried to add a different perspective to what others have said. Again, nothing more than that.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Sigh.  And here I thought you had the potential for learning.  My friend, I don't want to give up on you, as so many others have.

But when you say stuff like: 
If some feel it's unfair my answer is a simple one -- do the legwork and see firsthand the kind of exposure one gets from having the wherewithal to have such a database fresh in your mind.

you lose most of your audience, as that's so patronizing and dismissive as to be offensive.  And thus it's tough to keep much hope for you.

But still I try.

I get your point; truly I do.  Heck you like many others don't find PB to be a 10.  That is absolutely fine.  What some of us don't get more are your dismissal of some holes as "weak"; we're trying to get you to see that they are not as weak as you believe they are.  And if you don't agree with that, then that's just fine also.

Just give the "get out and see more courses" stuff a rest, will you?

And I say this not to pick at you, but rather as a word of friendly advice.  I do believe your take on courses - and knowledge thereof - is first-rate.  It's your people skills that I am trying to help you with.

And to that end, a simple acknowledgment that you didn't know that Doak had clarified and slightly changed his definition of 10 before I told you would be a benefit as well.  You seem to have few supporters here, Matt.  Don't throw away one of the few.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Your all time favorite # 1 golf course in the world used to be next to an Ocean, in fact, it was an Ocean.

Hence, the "Huckaby Syndrome" remains a proper label.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Huckaby,

Your all time favorite # 1 golf course in the world used to be next to an Ocean, in fact, it was an Ocean.

Hence, the "Huckaby Syndrome" remains a proper label.

One could say that about every course on earth pretty much, Pat.

But nice try.

TH

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, I don't think standing on the tee is where I decide the merits of a hole/course.

Most courses faces primarily determine whether they are world class. I see few differences in most of the greens at PB (save for the JN green @ #5) They are consistently small undulating with internal slopes and all are well protected with deep bunkers, usually with a steep grass wall/hump. Even though they are small each have enough pin positions to place a premium on the exact placement of one's approach. This is very true on #12 just as it is on #1, 4, 11, 13 and 17.

[JESII]

Adam,

Tell me, how does the hole location on #1 effect your tee shot? #4? #11?