[Keith OHalloran]

When you are talking of the ocean beng in play, how do you factor in the wind off the ocean? On holes that you can't hit in the water, the ocean breeze can still be a factor. I assume that the prevailing winds had to be taken into account in the design of the course.

Full disclosure, I have never played Pebble, hit a ball in the Pacific Ocean, or stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

[Jordan Wall]

Jamie, that would be in post 108 where he denies the ocean front aesthetics are part of the evaluation of the golf course.

Plus, it has been a long standing argument between him and others on this site over the years.

As far as he is concerned, it seems he feels it might as well be a big bunker.

Garland, I disagree.  In reading Pat's post he clearly states that the ocean should only be evaluated in line with the architecture of the course when it is actually in play.  I think he makes a valid point when interpreting the architecture of a course.

While I believe aesthetics are an important aspect of a golf course, some people don't see eye to eye on that.  Pat seems to be evaluating the ocean as a use of strategy within the course where you point that it adds something to the course in a different respect.  In the case that you don't agree with how the ocean is evaluated on a course, just agree to disagree, no?  

I personally feel this is an interesting discussion.  I don't think I would ever compare PD and PB on the basis that they are indeed two very different golf courses, and each are great in their own respect.  However, it is interesting to hear other people's opinions on how they evaluate courses and in this case how they go about comparing two courses that in my mind are vastly different.  In fact, discussions like this are part of what makes this site great, in my opinion.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, I disagree.  In reading Pat's post he clearly states that the ocean should only be evaluated in line with the architecture of the course when it is actually in play.  I think he makes a valid point when interpreting the architecture of a course.

Frank Lloyd Wright and Frank Gehry are considered great architects due to the great aesthetics of their works. By leaving out the aesthetics, you are leaving out a significant part of the architecture. Similarly when accepting infrastructure of less capability, you are leaving out a significant part of the architecture. You are reduced in part to evaluating on shot values and the like.

While I believe aesthetics are an important aspect of a golf course, some people don't see eye to eye on that.  Pat seems to be evaluating the ocean as a use of strategy within the course where you point that it adds something to the course in a different respect.  In the case that you don't agree with how the ocean is evaluated on a course, just agree to disagree, no?  

I personally feel this is an interesting discussion.  I don't think I would ever compare PD and PB on the basis that they are indeed two very different golf courses, and each are great in their own respect.  

If you are going to take Dugger's stance on the subject, perhaps you should credit him first.

However, it is interesting to hear other people's opinions on how they evaluate courses and in this case how they go about comparing two courses that in my mind are vastly different.  In fact, discussions like this are part of what makes this site great, in my opinion.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Hole #3. This is another tough comparison. Both holes play to a green that somewhat overlooks the ocean and both holes require some choices off the tee that directly impact the second shot. Quick review of each:

Pebble, Par 4, this holes plays as a Cape hole off the tee giving the player the option to play the ball as far left as he chooses (Tiger must have aimed his tee shot at the 2010 US Open at the right side of the 16th green; he didn't pull it off though). This hole really requires precision off the tee since it plays into the prevailing wind, therefore bringing the bunker that sits on the inside of the dogleg into play, but the player must also guard against hitting too long as that shot will wind up in bunkers as well. The green is designed in such a way as to reward the player who takes the aggressive line off the tee and pulls off the shot. The green has a rather narrow entrance, is elevated and has bunkers guarding front right and the entire left side. I feel like this hole is the best of the "landlocked" Cape holes I have played or seen, better than 10 at Old Macdonald, IMO.

Pacific, Par 5, hole plays mostly straight with the green angled from front left to back right in relation to the player. The best play off the tee, if the players wants to reach the green in 2, is to play the ball left of the two centerline bunkers. That will give the player the chance to go for the green with a straight shot. If the player chooses the safer, wider route to the right of the bunkers he will likely lay short of the green to a preferred yardage. Otherwise he would have to hit a large fade (or draw for a left-hander) into the green in order for it to stay on the surface. The centerline bunkers really make the hole however, really forcing the player to make a decision and hit a precise tee shot. The green is designed such that it is receptive to long shots from players going for the green in two and hitting a good shot. However, there are pretty large penalties around the green awaiting those who try and fail.

Overall, these are two very, VERY good holes, and while I have seen where others here do not agree, I don't think either holes has any real weakness, and I am going to once again say they Draw in a comparison. These are two fantastic holes.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Garland aesthetics are evaluated separately. The ocean is no more in play on #5 at Pebble than it is on #12; therefore on those two holes, you don't include the ocean as a factor in determining architecture, the ocean is just in view on those holes, nothing more. 8, 18 and so forth have the ocean evaluated as a hazard to the proper play of the hole.

Infrastructure of less capability? What does that mean? That Pebble is somehow inferior because it doesn't drain as well as Pacific? How well does Cypress drain after a big rain? Spyglass? Pacific Grove? Harding Park, SFGC, and so on?

Let me give you some education here. See, you've chosen to butt heads with the wrong guy. Go to this website:  http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Look up the soil characteristics for Pebble Beach, CA and Bandon, OR. Read the definitions and such about soil drainage for the different types of soils at each location; specifically the soils that occupy the majority of the property. Then go to this site:
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/contents/chapter3.html
Look up the definitions of each type of drainage classification.

Once you've done all that, come back to me.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland aesthetics are evaluated separately. The ocean is no more in play on #5 at Pebble than it is on #12; therefore on those two holes, you don't include the ocean as a factor in determining architecture, the ocean is just in view on those holes, nothing more. 8, 18 and so forth have the ocean evaluated as a hazard to the proper play of the hole.

Infrastructure of less capability? What does that mean? That Pebble is somehow inferior because it doesn't drain as well as Pacific? How well does Cypress drain after a big rain? Spyglass? Pacific Grove? Harding Park, SFGC, and so on?

Let me give you some education here. See, you've chosen to butt heads with the wrong guy. Go to this website:  http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Look up the soil characteristics for Pebble Beach, CA and Bandon, OR. Read the definitions and such about soil drainage for the different types of soils at each location; specifically the soils that occupy the majority of the property. Then go to this site:
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/contents/chapter3.html
Look up the definitions of each type of drainage classification.

Once you've done all that, come back to me.

Jamie,

What are the soils at the Kohler, WI golf site, and what relationship to those pre-existing soils does the golf course there have?

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Garland aesthetics are evaluated separately. The ocean is no more in play on #5 at Pebble than it is on #12; therefore on those two holes, you don't include the ocean as a factor in determining architecture, the ocean is just in view on those holes, nothing more. 8, 18 and so forth have the ocean evaluated as a hazard to the proper play of the hole.

Infrastructure of less capability? What does that mean? That Pebble is somehow inferior because it doesn't drain as well as Pacific? How well does Cypress drain after a big rain? Spyglass? Pacific Grove? Harding Park, SFGC, and so on?

Let me give you some education here. See, you've chosen to butt heads with the wrong guy. Go to this website:  http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Look up the soil characteristics for Pebble Beach, CA and Bandon, OR. Read the definitions and such about soil drainage for the different types of soils at each location; specifically the soils that occupy the majority of the property. Then go to this site:
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/contents/chapter3.html
Look up the definitions of each type of drainage classification.

Once you've done all that, come back to me.

Jamie,

What are the soils at the Kohler, WI golf site, and what relationship to those pre-existing soils does the golf course there have?

What the hell does that matter? We are talking about Pacific Dunes and Pebble Beach here.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland aesthetics are evaluated separately. The ocean is no more in play on #5 at Pebble than it is on #12; therefore on those two holes, you don't include the ocean as a factor in determining architecture, the ocean is just in view on those holes, nothing more. 8, 18 and so forth have the ocean evaluated as a hazard to the proper play of the hole.

Infrastructure of less capability? What does that mean? That Pebble is somehow inferior because it doesn't drain as well as Pacific? How well does Cypress drain after a big rain? Spyglass? Pacific Grove? Harding Park, SFGC, and so on?

Let me give you some education here. See, you've chosen to butt heads with the wrong guy. Go to this website:  http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Look up the soil characteristics for Pebble Beach, CA and Bandon, OR. Read the definitions and such about soil drainage for the different types of soils at each location; specifically the soils that occupy the majority of the property. Then go to this site:
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/contents/chapter3.html
Look up the definitions of each type of drainage classification.

Once you've done all that, come back to me.

Jamie,

What are the soils at the Kohler, WI golf site, and what relationship to those pre-existing soils does the golf course there have?

What the hell does that matter? We are talking about Pacific Dunes and Pebble Beach here.

It gives an example of architecture work that makes your Pebble Beach soils argument evaporate into thin air.

[Sven Nilsen]

Interested to see where you come out on the hole by hole comparison as this thread develops.  I generally agree with a lot of posters that these are very different courses, and in some ways uncomparable.  But I'm a sucker for hole by hole analysis.

As far as a "like" hole comparison goes, I'd break it down as such (PB on the left, PD on the right):

Opening Par 4 -

1 v. 1 - PD by a mile, as an opener it really sets the table for what's to come

Par 3's -

5 v. 5 or 14 - PD with either hole
7 v. 11 - Draw, how could you pick (if someone wants to make the history argument, PB might squeak ahead)
12 v. 17 - PD - the movement on this green wins out
17 v. 10 - PB - who hasn't re-enacted the Watson chip their first round on PB - bonus if you can re-enact the Nicklaus tee-ball

Short Par 4's -

3 v. 9 (lower green) - PB by a nose
4 v. 16 - PD, the angles decide it here
8 v. 6 - the two iconic par 4's, has to be a Draw
11 or 15 v. 8 - PD wins against either

Long Par 4's -

9 v. 13 - Draw
10 v. 4 - Draw
13 v. 2 - PD -
16 v. 7 - as good a test as the hole in Monterrey provides, 7 at PD is better

Par 5's -

2 v. 12 - PD (just a bit more going on)
6 v. 3 - Draw
14 v. 15 - PB

Closing Par 5 -

18 v. 18 - PB - I'd rather finish with a shot at birdie than the feeling I just got the piss beat out of me

Final tally - PD 8, PB 4, 5 holes halved

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Garland aesthetics are evaluated separately. The ocean is no more in play on #5 at Pebble than it is on #12; therefore on those two holes, you don't include the ocean as a factor in determining architecture, the ocean is just in view on those holes, nothing more. 8, 18 and so forth have the ocean evaluated as a hazard to the proper play of the hole.

Infrastructure of less capability? What does that mean? That Pebble is somehow inferior because it doesn't drain as well as Pacific? How well does Cypress drain after a big rain? Spyglass? Pacific Grove? Harding Park, SFGC, and so on?

Let me give you some education here. See, you've chosen to butt heads with the wrong guy. Go to this website:  http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Look up the soil characteristics for Pebble Beach, CA and Bandon, OR. Read the definitions and such about soil drainage for the different types of soils at each location; specifically the soils that occupy the majority of the property. Then go to this site:
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/contents/chapter3.html
Look up the definitions of each type of drainage classification.

Once you've done all that, come back to me.

Jamie,

What are the soils at the Kohler, WI golf site, and what relationship to those pre-existing soils does the golf course there have?

What the hell does that matter? We are talking about Pacific Dunes and Pebble Beach here.

It gives an example of architecture work that makes your Pebble Beach soils argument evaporate into thin air.

Now you're just hallucinating. If you look at the land at Kohler (blackwolf) it is generally classified as Well Drained. And at Whistling Straits, parts of it are classified as Somewhat Poorly Drained, but consider that, if Mr. Morrissett's review is correct (and we have no reason at all to think it is not) 800,000 cubic yards of sand and soil were hauled in to construct the site and from what I understand nearly the entire site was manufactured. You're really stretching here to even compare the two. Try to stick to the comparisons at hand, even though you are not terribly good at that either.

[Michael Dugger]

So, right down the street from PB, Mike Strantz spent millions of dollars sand capping MPCC for what, the heck of it?

I mention this because if the "conditions" at Cypress and Spyglass are similar to Pebble, than surely we have to include MPCC into this discussion.

As for Pacific Dunes.  I do believe some sand had to be capped over some of the course, on the "red top" in particular.

But to say the entire course was sand capped is bull.  When they lopped off the top of a dune to create the 14th green, for example, did they sand cap it?  I'm looking at you Pat Mucci.  

[Jordan Wall]

Garland, I disagree.  In reading Pat's post he clearly states that the ocean should only be evaluated in line with the architecture of the course when it is actually in play.  I think he makes a valid point when interpreting the architecture of a course.

Frank Lloyd Wright and Frank Gehry are considered great architects due to the great aesthetics of their works. By leaving out the aesthetics, you are leaving out a significant part of the architecture. Similarly when accepting infrastructure of less capability, you are leaving out a significant part of the architecture. You are reduced in part to evaluating on shot values and the like.

I personally feel this is an interesting discussion.  I don't think I would ever compare PD and PB on the basis that they are indeed two very different golf courses, and each are great in their own respect.  

If you are going to take Dugger's stance on the subject, perhaps you should credit him first.

Garland,

Don't ever Mucci me in green again.

I get the sense that your are so enamored with Pacific Dunes that you are willing to do whatever possible to defend the course, especially at the expense of Pebble Beach.  Why are you so quick to point out flaws at PB but not PD?

Perhaps you should take some time to honestly evaluate PB and not be so quick to judge the course based on minor components that for one you don’t know much if anything about, and for two aren’t even accurate and make your argument look juvenile.  You point out infrastructure as a flaw of PB on the basis that it detriments the architecture of PB and its playability.  I agree that infrastructure can be of detriment to a course if it takes away from the optimal playing conditions of the course; however, at PB this is not the case.  Pebble often plays fast and firm, and though less so than PD while also being much greener, the fact is still that the course is conditioned wonderfully throughout most of the year.  Furthermore, your argument that PB does not have sufficient infrastructure which then detriments the conditioning of the course and therefore detracts from the course’s shot values is simply invalid.

If you had played the course, you would realize this.  Alas, you have not and are basing your strong judgments of the course merely on pictures and from reading about the course.  Personal experience always outweighs that.  That is the same reason I so harshly question Dugger’s judgments of the course.  Your judgments along with his are of little significance as you simply don’t have the experience or facts necessary to back up your opinions and solidify your thoughts.

[Michael Dugger]

Jordan,

Your input is always of insignificance because you have a pea brain 

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Jordan since you have most likely played Cypress, and obviously have caddied there, how does that course play after a heavy rain? How does that compare to Pebble?

[Michael Dugger]

I think you are lying about having played Pebble numerous times, Jordan.

I think you played it once because you've talked repeatedly about what a great experience it was.  Additionally, I didn't know Cypress Point caddies made the kind of scratch to afford ponying up $500 a round.

So you've walked it numerous times.  Yippee, you think that qualifies you as a Pebble Beach swami?

[Jordan Wall]

Jamie,

I haven't played Cypress after a significant rain squall, but I've caddied after one.  The conditioning is different at Cypress; from my observations Pebble is kept much more green than Cypress, perhaps due to watering more, and as such Cypress tends to play firmer.  After heavy rain Cypress still played quite firm.  I think it would take several days of hard rain to really impact Cypress to the point where the course wouldn't play firm any more.  Pebble definitely plays softer.

My feeling is that the amount of traffic Pebble gets is a big reason why the course can get so soft after a hard rain.  You never get a day full of constant footprints on the greens and fairways at Cypress like you do at Pebble.


Michael,

You don't have to believe me, I never asked you to and if you choose not to then thats your opinion and it doesn't bother me.  I just question why you and Garland are so quick to judge the course and contstantly nitpick and emphasize its flaws when you won't do the same for PD; a course I know you've both played and love.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Outstanding Jordan. I was just curious about it.

Can we possibly get back to discussing the holes as I am presenting them? Just an idea.

[Michael Dugger]

Michael,

I just question why you and Garland are so quick to judge the course and constantly nitpick and emphasize its flaws when you won't do the same for PD; a course I know you've both played and love.

Okay, how about this...

Fescue can provide a less than perfect putting surface, so all the greens at Bandon can be a little grainy and funky from time to time.  

But then again, Pebble's greens aren't pure bent either, they're mostly Poa, which can get bumpy too.

Other than that, Pacific Dunes is about as perfect as golf can get.

My beef with Pebble Beach, in a nutshell, is the abundance of small, steep greens.  And guess what, I don't have to play Pebble Beach to know what it's like to play a golf course with small greens.  Imagine that!

No doubt the setting at Pebble is epic.  On a handful of holes like #7, a small target is great, totally justified and an apt fit.  #11 green at Pacific isn't all that big either, after all.

But it's a different game.  From how Jamie V. writes, I think his evaluation is only going to be biased towards the good player.  For you good golfers, small greens aren't a big deal.  You hit most of them anyways.

I have Dr. Mackenzie on my side, however.  He said a golf course can't be truly great unless it is both a challenge to the skilled player, and playable/fun for the rest of us.  With that notion in mind, I think Pacific Dunes wins out.

[Tim Bert]

As one who is pretty confident that Pacific Dunes will win this exercise for me and also as one that is not a highly skilled golfer like Jamie and Jordan, I am going to call total BS on the playable / fun for less skilled golfers judgment.

Pebble Beach is no less playable for me than Pacific Dunes. Slightly less fun for me personally but not because of playability or difficulty.   I am going to blow up on holes on both courses but in my brief history I have been equally likely to break 90 on either one (never).  And I have played Pebble only 3 times. I dare say that from the tees I play I think I could break 90 there before I would at Pacific (12 rounds and counting).

The small greens are a treat and are fun to play. I just like Pacific Dunes better.   

[Michael Dugger]

As one who is pretty confident that Pacific Dunes will win this exercise for me and also as one that is not a highly skilled golfer like Jamie and Jordan, I am going to call total BS on the playable / fun for less skilled golfers judgment.

Pebble Beach is no less playable for me than Pacific Dunes. Slightly less fun for me personally but not because of playability or difficulty.   I am going to blow up on holes on both courses but in my brief history I have been equally likely to break 90 on either one (never).  And I have played Pebble only 3 times. I dare say that from the tees I play I think I could break 90 there before I would at Pacific (12 rounds and counting).

The small greens are a treat and are fun to play. I just like Pacific Dunes better.  

It takes all types.

I venture to guess it depends upon the "lesser golfer's" particular weakness.

Tom is not shy about admitting his courses place a premium on short game and putting skills.

I'm actually pretty good there.  My weakness is in the approach game.  Thus, when the penalty for missing a green is severe, I have a long day.

Pure bias, no doubt. 

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Michael,

I just question why you and Garland are so quick to judge the course and constantly nitpick and emphasize its flaws when you won't do the same for PD; a course I know you've both played and love.

Okay, how about this...

Fescue can provide a less than perfect putting surface, so all the greens at Bandon can be a little grainy and funky from time to time.  

But then again, Pebble's greens aren't pure bent either, they're mostly Poa, which can get bumpy too.

Other than that, Pacific Dunes is about as perfect as golf can get.

My beef with Pebble Beach, in a nutshell, is the abundance of small, steep greens.  And guess what, I don't have to play Pebble Beach to know what it's like to play a golf course with small greens.  Imagine that!

No doubt the setting at Pebble is epic.  On a handful of holes like #7, a small target is great, totally justified and an apt fit.  #11 green at Pacific isn't all that big either, after all.

But it's a different game.  From how Jamie V. writes, I think his evaluation is only going to be biased towards the good player.  For you good golfers, small greens aren't a big deal.  You hit most of them anyways.

I have Dr. Mackenzie on my side, however.  He said a golf course can't be truly great unless it is both a challenge to the skilled player, and playable/fun for the rest of us.  With that notion in mind, I think Pacific Dunes wins out.

Michael there are 2 or 3 holes that are not somewhat easily playable for the average golfer. 7 is rather difficult, 8 is really difficult (but its a difficult hole for everyone) if you want to go at the green in two but who says you MUST do that, and the green on 14 is insane.

And your saying that Pebble has steep greens is simply not correct. Sure, the right half of 14 is not playable and 11 can get away from you rather quickly if you are above the hole, but other than that, I do not recall any greens that were massively sloped or anything close to steep.

Tim Bert you bring an excellent opinion into this, and have prompted another thought. I think that once the player gets out of the fairway, the course is more playable at Pebble than at Pacific. Garland was talking about houses at Pebble and it occurred to me that if a player hit a shot which would wind up in a house at Pebble, he would in all likelihood have a lost ball at Pacific. Pebble has wall-to-wall grass, turf type. At Pacific, once you get more than a short distance off the fairway on some holes, you're in a forest so thick the squirrels don't even go there.

[Garland Bayley]

... Pebble definitely plays softer. ...
...

Jordan,

I don't have to play Pebble with you validating my arguments.

And you must be a mind reader, because I have never said I love Pacific Dunes.

[Andy Troeger]

Pac Dunes wins #3 for me. Great par five that can be played safely for a relatively easy par/bogey or the better player can try to challenge the left for a chance at birdie. The 3rd at Pebble is better than it gets credit for, but the shots are fairly dictated. Pac 2 up for me.

Michael,
I don't think its likely that Pebble is more penal for the average golfer than Pac Dunes. The potential for a big number at Pac is probably higher--my experience is too limited with either course to know for sure. I would guess that Pac from the same yardage would be tougher than Pebble on a regular golfer. Pebble might be tougher tee-to-green with Pac more difficult on the short game. As a high single-digit handicap, I think I have a better chance of breaking 80 at Pacific, but would shoot more consistent scores at Pebble.

You still strike me as evaluating the course based on tournament play, when its normal maintenance isn't anywhere close to that, from my experience and the general comments elsewhere.

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't understand why my comparison of Sand Hills vs Riviera did not meet this same intellectual roadblock.  I even surprised myself by finding out that Sand Hills was the winner.  You guys are forcing Jamie into a corner and boring us to death.

[Garland Bayley]

... if a player hit a shot which would wind up in a house at Pebble, he would in all likelihood have a lost ball at Pacific....

I had five lost balls at Pacific. But, then I have never said I love Pacific.

Mr. Fore Left.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()