I have excerpted the following post from the Hole Sequencing thread to discuss an idea that first formed in my mind over thirty years ago while a greenskeeper at Pebble....one I feel has merit, even if for discussion purposes only. I've added some relative strength scales and maximum lengths to the original post. It's easy to see the changes when using Google Earth;
-Adam, when you state: "Paul, You know on the surface you're right about the reverse loop, if only to get 11 downhill, but in reality I sense the sequence of holes, their ebb and flow, their mojo, would be negatively altered. Counter intuitiveness at it's finest. In a Golf's 2+2 does not equal 4 kind of way. Besides, it is not how one would walk the raw property. With Carmel Bay calling, one would not head inland at that point. Changing that turn for home would be risky.".....I don't feel its risky at all. Its only seems risky because most people feel uncomfortable changing what they already have.....they are not looking at it with a designing eye on the land in its raw state. I do.
If one views it purely on the card, the reverse sequence does a better job of balancing the ocean asset and experience.
Instead of having your ocean holes as 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and then returning to the ocean for 17 and 18, the reverse sequence course would consist of 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, on the ocean and then return for 11, 12, 13, go back inland again for 14, 15, 16, and finish with 17 and 18.....for five holes on the returning nine, versus the current 3 holes. I actually liked the sequencing provided by using the old #5 better, because it provided a pause from the ocean and then a new dramatic discovery when one rounded the corner and came to #6 tee.
....but that's not the meat of the change.
- reverse 13 would play downhill to a semi pocketed corner surrounded by trees and a good back slope. It even still works with the abomination of a halfway house and maintenance building complex that was plopped down in a great view filled open space....a bad, bad placement decision if there ever was one. I could forgive a well designed halfway house, in fact one was needed....it would be a calming place to pause with great ocean views, but why the monstrous maintenance building....there is no justification.
455 yds
Old 6
New 7
- reverse 12 would play slightly uphill to another corner...the only uphill par three since they got rid of the old #5. Not losing alot here.
200 yds
Old 5
New 7
- reverse 11 would play directly towards the ocean [like 17], but the hole would also start at the highest elevation of the course and finish at one of its lowest. It would dogleg gently left and finish in the corner with Carmel beach spreading out below.....awesome hole compared to the existing one.
445 yds
Old 6
New 9
- reverse 10 would become a left turning mini cape hole with its green occupying the current #9 site. The views of #8 promontory and the ocean edge are really good for this hole and the next, and the afternoon sun will do nothing but accent this drama.
400 yds
Old 8.5
New 8.5
- reverse 9 would play out from an elevation above the preceding green and then turn slightly right with the second shot to an uphill green site.
465 yds
Old 9
New 9
In closing I don't feel the original routing is all that bad....routing is all about selecting among various options. I just don't feel they selected the best of the best...and besides, these guys were just amateurs anyway.
