The Old 5th at Pebble Beach

[JMEvensky]

It never felt like I was squeezing through a magical portal to the next dimensional Chakra because #4 is a breathtaking hole.

Same for me--minus the next dimensional Chakra part.

I always think 4 gets lost in the shuffle.Teeing off very early,the first gobsmack moment at PB is getting halfway up the fairway and seeing the water,hopefully with the sun reflecting off of it.

[Bill_Yates]

I don't know if you noticed, but during last Sunday's final round of the AT&T, the pros were playing Hole #5 from in front of the canyon on a tee right on the edge of the cliff.  While the shot from there is pretty much all carry over the rough and front bunker, the hole was playing at only about 150 yards. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib,

I always found the old 5th to be a pretty demanding hole, with not much room for deviation.

Certainly not big on views, but, tough and the 6th tee wasn't that far away.

[William_G]

the old 5th sucked compared to the new oceanfront hole

an uphill blind shot with fence/homes right and gunch left

while the new 5th could probably be better, there is no comparison

How would you compare the two holes in the context of the routing and continuity ?

the walk from the new 5th green to 6 tee is a disjointed walkback, but the new hole is 100% better in terms of continuity with the course as it is continues the ocean view from 4-10

great shot by Nickliaus in the final round in 82 

thanks

[J_ Crisham]

The caddies like the new 5th and forecaddy position on 6 much better! As a player the old 5th was just an unusual hole - the front bunker was bad and long was death. Difficult to gauge the wind as it was very sheltered in almost a tunnel. I think the new hole is a big improvement.

[Jason Thurman]

That hole screams for a reverse-Redan if you ask me, but I do not absolutely hate it and it hardly puts me into a state of "WTF was his Bear-osity thinking?"

I've thought the same thing about a "reverse redan" seeming natural on that section of the property, except for the fact that the hole is much too short for most golfers to ever consider a running shot there by the time it was designed. It's just a PW or 9 iron for me from the golds, and maybe a 6 from the blues. If the tee could be stretched back to long-iron distance, then I'd agree. But a 187 yard redan is just a redan in theory.

[Joel_Stewart]

Count me in as one that didn't like the old 5th hole.  It was an ugly hole aesthetically and the playability was lousy.   I hit it to the left last time I played it and as many have mentioned, it wrecked my round.

There is no question Nicklaus took the easy SAFE way building the new 5th.   A reverse redan would have worked or just the right side of the green up against the ocean.   The bunkers are boring in shape.  The green has some subtle movement but it's not that hard to putt.  I'm a little surprised that Palmer hasn't tweaked it but there are many other holes that needed attention before the 5th.   

[Dan Kelly]

5 was my lone birdie in my lone PB round -- so I was sorry to see it go NLE.

C'est la vie!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan & Joel,

Your comments seem to reinforce my belief that score often determines one's assessment of a hole/golf course.

[Joel_Stewart]

Dan & Joel,

Your comments seem to reinforce my belief that score often determines one's assessment of a hole/golf course.

Not really.   I played that hole several times and I can't recall making birdie but I know I made par more than once.  I just recalled the last time I played it on my previous post.

[JWL]

Sam
I'll fill you in on all the details this afternoon. 

[Pat Burke]

urban myth or speculation.
The old 5th was always pretty sketchy condition wise, when I played there.
Very thin coverage due to the shade (and likely air circ).
Knowing the tree hugging climate, they probably couldn't touch the trees to open it up?

I haven't played the new 5th, but played Pebble 40+ times and felt the 5th was just blah

[Dan Kelly]

Dan & Joel,

Your comments seem to reinforce my belief that score often determines one's assessment of a hole/golf course.

Of course, I didn't say I thought it was a good hole! I really don't know; played it only once, which is never enough to judge. But you knew that!

In my case, though, you're right: Score does often play into my assessment of a golf hole.

I tend to like holes that beat the crap out of me.

Must be that Irish Catholic thing again...

[Gib_Papazian]

I've never been clear why the old #5 gave everyone so much trouble. It was a block 5-iron to the middle of the green and though the slope was severe, the worst outcome was a 3-putt bogey. Over the green was bad, but not death; again it was a goat at a Supermodel party.

IMNSHO the hole could have been drastically improved simply by cutting down the trees along the arroyo - except that one cypress in the back left. Visually, the focal point would have directed the eye at an intimidating interior hazard, essentially drawing attention away from that ugly wall and cement path on the right.

The walk back to the 6th tee is an awkward irritant - no doubt about it - but I cannot see any other solution unless we decide to reverse the golf course and put a green 150 yards down the 6th fairway. Uh, maybe not.  

 

[JLahrman]

So it seems as though there are divided opinions on the old 5th.

It also seems as though Pebble Beach had tried to buy the land on which the new 5th currently sits ever since the course opened.

Which means that the course always wanted an oceanside hole there, so it wasn't Nicklaus's idea.

Given that, what else could have been done differently? The major criticism seems to be the walk from the 5th green to the 6th tee. Apart from that, what are the options for the hole? Keeping in mind that there is a 100-120 yard hole playing in pretty much the same direction with the ocean on the right coming up two holes later. More distance isn't an option. Nor is not having the hole smack up against the ocean, really.

[Adam Clayman]

J,  It would appear the large pot bunker right, removes completely, the thought of trying a shot that would flirt with the cove. It also obscures the parameters of the green. 

A better hole might've be a version like the original 16th at ANGC. A green that sloped towards, and bled, right into the hazard.

[JLahrman]

J,  It would appear the large pot bunker right, removes completely, the thought of trying a shot that would flirt with the cove. It also obscures the parameters of the green. 

A better hole might've be a version like the original 16th at ANGC. A green that sloped towards, and bled, right into the hazard.

It's true...I don't know that it completely removes the thought of trying a shot that gets close to the water. But the flag certainly doesn't look very accessible over there.

But of course...if there wasn't a bunker short right I would have a hard time believing that there wouldn't have been a bunker short left. Then there is no bailout area...which might not be needed from 160 yards for a good player, but there are a lot of not good players out on that course.

[JESII]

Is this hole (new and old comparison) the ultimate focal point for the debate about better routing flow versus better hole to create the best overall course?

Sure, plenty wouldn't call the current hole a great hole but nobody thinks the old hole was and so if the golf quality is slighly better and the routing flow is slightly worse what's the net result?

[Alex Miller]

J,  It would appear the large pot bunker right, removes completely, the thought of trying a shot that would flirt with the cove. It also obscures the parameters of the green. 

A better hole might've be a version like the original 16th at ANGC. A green that sloped towards, and bled, right into the hazard.

It's true...I don't know that it completely removes the thought of trying a shot that gets close to the water. But the flag certainly doesn't look very accessible over there.

But of course...if there wasn't a bunker short right I would have a hard time believing that there wouldn't have been a bunker short left. Then there is no bailout area...which might not be needed from 160 yards for a good player, but there are a lot of not good players out on that course.

The bunker creates an angle that the straight coastline would not. I don't think there is a clear "solution" to what can barely be defined as a problem.

Is this hole (new and old comparison) the ultimate focal point for the debate about better routing flow versus better hole to create the best overall course?

Sure, plenty wouldn't call the current hole a great hole but nobody thinks the old hole was and so if the golf quality is slighly better and the routing flow is slightly worse what's the net result?

To add to that equation, is the routing better or worse given the fact that the new hole is on a more appealing (though perhaps less strategic) piece of land?

[Gary Slatter]

Pete nailed it, I like the old 5th hole (because I fade it?).  The new one is certainly prettier, more expensive, but the old one was a good par 3.

[JLahrman]

To add to that equation, is the routing better or worse given the fact that the new hole is on a more appealing (though perhaps less strategic) piece of land?

I understand if people don't like the routing now. But there are worse things than a 100 yard walk back to the sixth tee at Pebble Beach. Builds some anticipation for the view you get when you turn around.

And if people like the old fifth hole better than the current fifth hole, I understand that too. I didn't play the old fifth so I can't comment.

But I don't get the line of thought that says we should play a lesser hole because it creates a more contiguous routing. It would have to be pretty damn inconvenient before I'd vote to play a dogleg par-3, even if we want to use a fun term like wormhole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JLahrman,

You can't be critical of disconnected routings for one course and give a disconnection a pass at Pebble Beach.

Continuity in the routing should be rewarded as an architectural plus.

I understand that the new hole may be an improvement, but, I wonder if a much better hole could have been designed if the company that runs PB didn't want to make a few quid by creating home sites in addition to a new golf hole.

Had the area west of the old hole been used strictly for golf and not homes and golf, would a far superior hole have been created ?

Phrased another way, did they sacrifice architectural greatness in order to maximize profits ?

The second question is, did they sacrifice architectural greatness in order to get name recognition, ergo tacit approval for the change ?

I'd sure like to hear Gib's and Bob Huntley's opinions on those questions.

[JLahrman]

JLahrman,

You can't be critical of disconnected routings for one course and give a disconnection a pass at Pebble Beach.

Continuity in the routing should be rewarded as an architectural plus.

I understand that the new hole may be an improvement, but, I wonder if a much better hole could have been designed if the company that runs PB didn't want to make a few quid by creating home sites in addition to a new golf hole.

Had the area west of the old hole been used strictly for golf and not homes and golf, would a far superior hole have been created ?

Phrased another way, did they sacrifice architectural greatness in order to maximize profits ?

The second question is, did they sacrifice architectural greatness in order to get name recognition, ergo tacit approval for the change ?

I'd sure like to hear Gib's and Bob Huntley's opinions on those questions.

I'm not really one who is big on criticizing routings. Better routing is a plus, but I'd rather have a better hole unless the routing is compromised in a much more significant way than it has been here. I just played the course a few weeks ago, walking and carrying my own bag, and until reading this thread I wasn't aware that the walk from 5 green to 6 tee was all that arduous or disruptive, though I'm sure it's a longer walk than the old routing required.

I'm sure it was nice to sell a few more bazillion dollar homes, but in this case I'd suspect that the any architectural sacrificing was done in the name of getting another oceanside hole (which was cetainly going to be a par-3). Do we have a better hole now? I didn't play the old one. Do we have a great hole? Probably not. Could we have had a great hole? That's a valid question.

I'd be interested to hear Gib and Sir Bob's opinions as well.

[William_G]

Do we have a better hole...no doubt

Could we have had a great hole...probably not

Is Charles Schwab happy with his new home fronting the new #5...I'm sure he is

does anyone want my opinion...no

[JLahrman]

Do we have a better hole...no doubt

Could we have had a great hole...probably not

Is Charles Schwab happy with his new home fronting the new #5...I'm sure he is

does anyone want my opinion...no

I'm glad I have your opinion...I didn't know Charles Schwab was in one of those homes. My portfolio performance has been a bit disappointing lately...if I would have had this info I would have stopped by to Talk To Chuck.