Is Pebble Beach overrated ?

[JESII]

There isn't one single hole at Pebble that comes remotely close to the mediocre/average category even if they are far "less" than what some of the other holes offer.

Really?


Everyone else (Tom included) is arguing that the mediocre holes are required for ebb and flow and to make Tom Simpson happy...

[Kalen Braley]

There isn't one single hole at Pebble that comes remotely close to the mediocre/average category even if they are far "less" than what some of the other holes offer.

Really?


Everyone else (Tom included) is arguing that the mediocre holes are required for ebb and flow and to make Tom Simpson happy...

My argument is that the spectacular holes are so great, it makes the other holes, which are still good in thier own right only "seem" less than that. But the reality is that they are still good holes when compared to the hundreds of thousands of golf holes that exist world wide.

If the lesser holes on a course are compared only to the best holes of that course only, then every course including CPC, PV, NGLA etc is going to have "mediocre" holes in comparison to thier spectacular ones.

[JESII]

I look at the "lesser" holes at Pebble compared to the "lesser" holes at other top 10 courses and see them lacking...

[Adrian_Stiff]

Was any of this written by the same person that said rules are made to be broken? Seriously beauty is in the eye of the beholder, in my opinion and it would seem many others for the same reason, there are a whole bunch of mediocure holes at Pebble. I disliked 14 but I can see how some might like. I thought 6 was a bit over rated, perhaps the 4th a bit under rated. 17 I disliked for the same reasons. We are not going to agree because you cant argue with an opinion. We will agree PB still has enough great holes to be a great course.

[Kalen Braley]

I look at the "lesser" holes at Pebble compared to the "lesser" holes at other top 10 courses and see them lacking...

Jim,

And that very well may be the case...but those lesser holes at Pebble are still way better than the average/mediocre crap one gets at Joe Dirt muni in EverydayTown, USA.

So perhaps what we are really trying to say is, the stratification between holes is greatest at Pebble as compared to other "top notch" layouts. I could be convinced to go along with that! 

[JESII]

Kalen,

That may well be, but my argument all along is that at #1 or #2 in the world it's overrated to me...

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

That may well be, but my argument all along is that at #1 or #2 in the world it's overrated to me...

I wouldn't put it in the top 1 or 2 either....but I could easily see it being in the top 15 or 20 in the world.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Would PBGL (or "not L" in homage to Bill Vostinak) be more highly regarded on this board if a couple of changes were made:

- no cart paths

- more brown and scruffy off the beaten path

i.e....like in these pictures I posted previously:  Pebble in 1963 pictures

I would be willing to bet that it would be the case.

[JESII]

Kevin,

I don't know...my only visit (two rounds) cost me a total of $120 in 1999 and saw the course in extremely good condition, although not necessarily brown.

My issue is that I went expecting more than I saw...which may well be my issue.

[Ian Andrew]

I agree that one mole has no effect on Cindy Crawford's beauty...4 to 8 of them might change things, ergo, my interrogation.

 

[Adrian_Stiff]

An opinion -Holes that a world top 5 ( criteria a top 100 hole) 7-8-9-10-18
holes that came close 6 and 4
holes that if they were on any golf course you would not talk about them 1-3- the old 5th - 11 -12 -15

I'm still having a hard time understanding your criteria for what constitutes a hole being top 5 or top 25 or top 1000.

#1 is nothing to write home about, but first holes rarely are....they are get away holes. I believe #3 is better than you think. It is an unusual hole, an awkward drive due to the severity of the dogleg. There is an excellent use of the barranca IMO, especially in combination with the orientation of the green and greenside bunkering. The old 5th was a completely unique hole (I'm sorry to see it go) because of the narrowness of the opening in the trees and the severity of the green, and again a good use of a barranca as well. It was visually intimidating. #11 suffers from the spectacular holes proceeding it; it is a very good hole that any great golf course would be proud to own. #6 and #14 deserve to be included in your top shelf hole catagory, and #16 and #4 are close behind. #13 is very good; #15 not quite as good, but has an interesting tee shot, again over a barranca. I love #2 too; it has an old fashioned look and feel with its cross hazards...very appealing to me. I'm not a big fan of #17, probably because the hole looks so good and dramatic from a TV tower and is visually pedestrian from ground level. That being said the design of the hole, ie the strategy, is world class. #12 is my least favorite hole, but as Tom Simpson said every great course needs at least one or two bad holes to be considered truly great.

TomM - My point about great holes was to say "the best 100 holes in the world" I think PB might have 5.... but the top 1000 course thing was more some of these holes (lets say the bottom 7 are holes that would be found on standard golf courses) I would put my favourite holes at Pebble in this order : 7 - 18 - 9 - 8 - 10 - 4 - 6 - 16 - 13 - 2 - 17 - 3 -15 -5old - 11 - 14 - 1  - 12, maybe the new 5th could go up with 4 and 6. I must have missed a lot with the old 5th, i remember narrowness and evergreen trees (juniper I think) was the hole pretty level, or green marginally raised? I dont even remember a highly contoured green. Most people on here have been correcting me on hole 3.

[Patrick_Mucci]

An opinion -Holes that a world top 5 ( criteria a top 100 hole) 7-8-9-10-18
holes that came close 6 and 4
holes that if they were on any golf course you would not talk about them 1-3- the old 5th - 11 -12 -15

I'm still having a hard time understanding your criteria for what constitutes a hole being top 5 or top 25 or top 1000.

#1 is nothing to write home about, but first holes rarely are....they are get away holes. I believe #3 is better than you think. It is an unusual hole, an awkward drive due to the severity of the dogleg. There is an excellent use of the barranca IMO, especially in combination with the orientation of the green and greenside bunkering. The old 5th was a completely unique hole (I'm sorry to see it go) because of the narrowness of the opening in the trees and the severity of the green, and again a good use of a barranca as well. It was visually intimidating. #11 suffers from the spectacular holes proceeding it; it is a very good hole that any great golf course would be proud to own. #6 and #14 deserve to be included in your top shelf hole catagory, and #16 and #4 are close behind. #13 is very good; #15 not quite as good, but has an interesting tee shot, again over a barranca. I love #2 too; it has an old fashioned look and feel with its cross hazards...very appealing to me.


Agree completely

I'm not a big fan of #17, probably because the hole looks so good and dramatic from a TV tower and is visually pedestrian from ground level. That being said the design of the hole, ie the strategy, is world class.


Tom,

Isn't that a function of overexposure ?

How many courses/holes  get evaluated in the context of the view from a TV camera or a blimp ?

# 17 is a great hole and even greater when the breeze is up

#12 is my least favorite hole, but as Tom Simpson said every great course needs at least one or two bad holes to be considered truly great.

I'd like the critics of # 12 to tell me what's so bad about it.

It's a par 3.

How is it lacking ?

How is it a "bad" hole ?

[Adam Clayman]

Pat, A re-occurring observation I find in the annual Pebble Beach bash thread is always the lack of articulation on why someone does not like a particular hole. Apparently when you don't like something, you need not justify it with anything more than, "I didn't like it".


I've tried to convey my descriptions of what's on the ground and often will state why I feel the way I do about a hole. The best example on this thread (and the others) surrounds the old 5th v. new 5th debate. The rebuttals are lacking in why they like it so much. At least Sir Thomas of Huckaby tried, and, if I recall correctly he stated that the coastal aspect was it's strength, or, why he liked it better.

12 is head scratcher, especially for the infrequent visitor. It has bunkers well short on the line of instinct that I don't believe I ever saw anyone get into. However, one does see them in their mind's eye as the club is taken back just before the swing. A fronting bunker that protects the left 3/4's of the green. The key bunker is the one just short and left of the putting surface directly next to the apron. IMO, it is key because the apron is where the conservative, or thoughtful player should be aiming. If the player misses just slightly right of the apron, the leeward bunker slope kicks the ball toward the putting surface, where it can go down the gentle hill towards the pin position, or get below it. The 12th green test players similarly to the way the fourth hole green tests players, except the 4th tests the accurate direction of the approach, while the 12th test the distance control of the player. It's that similar narrowness that is another re-occurring motiff throughout the course. Even on some of the bigger greens their subtle sections dictate how aggressive the player can be when putting.

Ok I'll stop now and see if anyone cares to take on your challenge.

[Sean Leary]

I don't get why 12 is so villified either. I don't think that 3 at CPC is THAT much better of a par 3, but I only played it once...

[Kevin Pallier]

Kevin:

The issue, which you don't answer or frankly admit, is that you played PB a grand total of one time. Kevin, if I played an Aussie course one time and had an opinion -- I'd be more elastic if you and/or others opined back that such a course can be more forthcoming with subsequent plays.

People who have played it more times and seen it in different circumstances -- like me and others -- are more fully aware of what PB is about and how it can play so that the architectural elements that I mentioned can come to the surface and shine rather brightly.

PB is like Pinehurst #2 -- if seen through slow and plodding turf conditions the very essence of the architecture is buried and most people -- you are not the first -- then dismiss the totality of the course while acknowledging the some elements of it are noteworthy. Get PB in a more consistent presentation and the nature of what is there is more easily seen and likely better appreciated.

In regards to your specific ratings of PB -- I'd have to see your entire listing of courses that you say would come ahead of PB.

Here's the nexus you missed Kevin -- Nicklaus, Watson and Miller have likely played more of the top courses under some of the most demanding of circumstances and for them to agree on one course being the most supreme of them all says a good deal in my mind. It may not register squat with you. To totally dismiss the eye that each of these gentlemen possesses is a bit presumptive on your part don't you think?

Matt

With respect that comes across as a pretty condascending post in my eyes at least.

In the outline of this thread - I said that I have seen PB twice. I don't necessarily buy into "you have to play a course X times to form an opinion on a courses quality or architecture". Some courses are great at first glance and whilst others can reveal more subtitlies and nuances in subsequent plays I agree - they also say "first impressions are lasting one's".

I keep coming back to the inference how can GW rate it in the Top10 courses in the World ? Having seen at least 8 of those Top10 (and 16 of the Top20) I can't see how it can be ? There are just too many holes at PB whose value can be questioned.

Case in point - attached is the current GM World Top10:
Pine Valley
Cypress Point
Augusta National
St. Andrews (Old)
Royal County Down
Shinnecock Hills
Pebble Beach
Oakmont
Muirfield
Merion (East)

Of all the courses listed above - other than PB - can you think of any where you question the merits of more than 3+ holes ?

Say the same again for those listed 11-15 ?

Sand Hills
National Golf Links of America
Royal Portrush
Royal Melbourne (Composite)
Royal Dornoch

PB is and remains a very good course but I think it is time it moves down the list to a more realistic region.

BTW - I don't really care where Watson, Nicklaus or Miller rate it in terms of their personal preferences each is entitled to their own opinion  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin,

Which holes at PB have values which can be questioned ?

What are their values ?

What are the questions about those values ?

[Kevin Pallier]

Pat

"Value" can be interchanged with the word "quality" if you like.

[Sean Leary]

Kevin,

I think that yes you question the merits of 3+ holes on many of those courses. That doesn't mean they are not great and should not be top 15..

[Bill_McBride]

Cypress Point #3, #10, #18 for starters, not the strongest holes.  Any question Cypress Point is a 10, or Top 10?

The Old Course, #3, #6, #9?  Still a Top 10.

I frankly can't imagine a course with 18 world class holes.  It would be difficult to route or play such a course, there needs to be a rhythm to a golf course and in almost every case I can think of, it's the lesser holes that provide the breather.

At Pebble Beach there are 9 great holes on the water, plus #2, #3, #14, #16 are terrific holes off the water.  It's in my Top 15.

[Kevin Pallier]

Kevin,

I think that yes you question the merits of 3+ holes on many of those courses. That doesn't mean they are not great and should not be top 15..

As many as are being questioned on PB ?

I played Cypress Point with you - which holes would you question the quality of ?

[Sean Leary]

KP,

What Bill said

Pine Valley is the closest I have seen to having 18 great holes. Which is probably why it is generally number 1.

[Kevin Pallier]

Cypress Point #3, #10, #17 for starters, not the strongest holes.  Any question Cypress Point is a 10, or Top 10?

The Old Course, #3, #6, #9?  Still a Top 10.

I frankly can't imagine a course with 18 world class holes.  It would be difficult to route or play such a course, there needs to be a rhythm to a golf course and in almost every case I can think of, it's the lesser holes that provide the breather.

At Pebble Beach there are 9 great holes on the water, plus #2, #3, #14, #16 are terrific holes off the water.  It's in my Top 15.

Bill

That still leaves around 5 holes you think are less than "terrific" at and probably "up for question" at PB

I agree that there's probably no such thing as 18 world class holes on any course but I certainly question more from PB than I do on any other in the Top15.

Sean

I actually didn't miind #10 and thought the greensite was really cool at #17 at CPC 

[Matt_Ward]

Kevin:

The nature of a blog site like this one is for spirited debate and discussion. You have challenged people who defend PB and I have done likewise with you and how you see the course. Please realize that is the context of my discussion and probing. It is not condesending but part of what any 19th hole chatter will be about.

I said before that limited plays -- in your case just two times at PB -- and you said you had seen PB twice -- don't know if that means you have played the course twice. In any event, limited plays versus those with multiple plays can mean major distinctions because some courses reveal more of themselves through more times played. I mentioned a few examples beyond PB -- places like Pinehurst #2 and TOC, are two others that come quickly to mind. Sometimes first impressions can be less than what one expected. PB can be like that when dealing with the slow and plodding conditions that often are the rule of thumb when there minus the big time events played there. I know many people come away with being far less impressed with the likes of Pinehurst #2 and TOC for that very same reason. When PB has slow turf conditions the very nature of the architecture is hidden -- the course plays far easier and the qualities of even the so-so holes -- save for #1 -- can be thoroughly dismissed as inferior to the max.

Kevin, you also erroneously keep on throwing forward to me specifically that I am defending PB's position among the top ten. Where did I say that? I simply said that PB, for me at least, is in the teens when all USA courses are considered -- I base that on having played 90 of the current top USA courses per the Digest listing. If I had to add PB to a world wide listing I'd say it's certainly among the top 25 and I have played enough of the current listing to venture an informed opinion on that front as well. You say it would be outside the top 25 and I don't see it that way.

In regards to the question you asked concerning the number of so-so holes at PB when compared to the others that are also listed Iould say that you need to realize that the stellar holes at PB -- do outdistance any combination of holes from the other layouts you mentioned. I agree that PB does have enough so-so holes that would bump it down -- as I said previously, to the teens when held against all other USA courses. Let me also point out just one other course that gets a very high rating because of theway it is prepared -- Dunluce at PR. The rough is more haylike just off fairwways to accentuate the penal dimensions when playing there. There are also a few holes there that are mere bystanders when you compare it to the whole.

I also think when you dismiss the opinions of such people like Nicklaus, Watson and Miller you really need to realize where such opinoins are coming from. I don't doubt you can have an opinion on anything and you are free to disagree but I think these foks have seen what so many of the top tier courses are about in their finest form and for them to hail PB for one final round of golf sas something to me.

[Scott Warren]

Matt,

This debate has intersted me as a reader because I am currently in the process of deciding whether I fancy handing over five notes to play it later this year.

A recurring line from you in this thread has been: 'It's a pity so many play it only once or twice in soft conditions...'

What % of the time would you say Pebble Beach is fast and firm?

And if that number is a minority of the time, does it deserve to be rated on that basis - ie. what it can be when maintained in the right conditions - or should it be rated with reference to being soft and mushy if that is the condition it is presented in more often than not?

[Jud_T]

Scott,

for those 5 notes you can play all four bandon courses in peak season and have beer money left over....