Pebble vs. Spyglass

[Connor Dougherty]

It's a thread which has probably come up before, but I went back to the course profile of Pebble Beach on the site and noticed this line:

Only the architect of Spyglass Hill would rate it remotely close to Pebble’s staggeringly superior design.

Is this still the case? I'll wait to chime in for a little bit.

[Tim Leahy]

Apples vs oranges, completely different properties.

[Bill_McBride]

Here's an analogy:

Playing Pebble is like a trip to the zoo.   Fun.

After the first five holes, playing Spyglass is also like a trip - to the dentist.   Not fun.

[Joel_Stewart]

It's not even close.  The recent press that the Pebble Beach partners would welcome a major at Spyglass must be a fantasy?

Spyglass has made some (Fazio) changes which I'm reluctant to call improvements.  The drainage has been greatly improved which has led to much better conditioning. 

There are some good holes after the first 5 but it's nothing compared to Pebble Beach.

[BHoover]

I could have sworn that today's final round had been postponed. I haven't seen anything except aerial shots of the Monterrey coast, Cialis and low T ads, and promos for the newest episodes of Person of Interest and one of the 14 spin-offs of NCIS. My dogs also are very jealous of th spoiled rich dogs that get to play on the beaches of Carmel.

[Jim Hoak]

In my opinion, Spyglass would make a great PGA Championship course.  The August weather would be good (fog, no rain), the course can be very challenging, and the amenities and crowds have been proven.  If the PGA would get over it's animosity toward USGA sites, it would be a great tournament.
Spyglass may not quite equal Pebble Beach, but it sure outshines many other recent PGA sites.

[Jordan Standefer]

I have heard from multiple people who said that Pebble has the history, but Spyglass is the better course.  Bull.  I'm not saying that Spyglass isn't great in its own right, but nothing on Spyglass compares to 6, 7, 8, or 18 at Pebble.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel & Jim,

I agree, I think Spyglass is a very good golf course.

I don't understand the negative opinions.

Are Southampton and Sebonack not good golf courses because their neighbors are SHGC and NGLA ?

[Nigel Islam]

The whole "Pebble has the history, but Spyglass is better" thing is perplexing. The argument people use against Pebble is that the ocean holes make the course and the rest of the course doesn't measure up. If you use that argument against Pebble though you have to say the same thing about Spyglass, don't you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd be interested in knowing the play ratio given 100 rounds

I think I'd opt for PBGC 80-20

[Tim Leahy]

60-40 Spyglass. The iceplant holes are great but I love the forrest holes too.

[Matt_Cohn]

I'm a little worried about Spyglass. It keeps getting softened and "normalized" bit by bit. The iceplant is taken out, fairway is mowed around the tree on #16, native areas are pushed farther away (#2, #3, #15 among others), runoffs on #1 and #7 are removed, clumsy landscaping is installed on #4 (non-native plants) and #12 (flowerbed).

It's still my second-favorite course (behind Knollwood, IL). But I don't exactly think it's going in the right direction. Fair enough if they want to moderate the difficulty a little for everyday play, but the landscaping stuff bothers me. The 4th green is shown below. Even if you don't like the old iceplant version, I just don't think the current version in the second picture looks right. It doesn't look natural to me in the way that the vegetation on the back dune has nothing to do with the native vegetation on the left side of the picture — it's clearly been planned and created.

One way or another, why can't they make the vegetation in the back match the stuff in the front? Why are they missing this?

[Stewart Naugler]

Spyglass is a great property but I'd play Pebble over Spyglass any day.

Pebble just doesn't disappoint.

When I worked at Cypress I wanted to play Pebble just as much as I wanted to play Cypress. Now that may be because I could play Cypress more than Pebble.

Regardless, Pebble is in a different league than Spy.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Here's an analogy:

Playing Pebble is like a trip to the zoo.   Fun.

After the first five holes, playing Spyglass is also like a trip - to the dentist.   Not fun.

hey now Bill...some of us on here may have a problem with that

But I agree two totally diffreent animals.
However , I do believe that if Spyglass was not in the same"hood" as Pebble it would be rated higher, so many really good holes.
Tougher than Pebble in my opinion at least for good players.

[Patrick_Mucci]

60-40 Spyglass. The iceplant holes are great but I love the forrest holes too.

Tim,

There is NO "ice plant", it's all been removed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt,

I think the 4th hole is one of the really, really good, if not great holes in golf.

[Bill_McBride]

Here's an analogy:

Playing Pebble is like a trip to the zoo.   Fun.

After the first five holes, playing Spyglass is also like a trip - to the dentist.   Not fun.

hey now Bill...some of us on here may have a problem with that

But I agree two totally diffreent animals.
However , I do believe that if Spyglass was not in the same"hood" as Pebble it would be rated higher, so many really good holes.
Tougher than Pebble in my opinion at least for good players.

Michael, you've seen me play.......

[Carl Nichols]

I'm a little worried about Spyglass. It keeps getting softened and "normalized" bit by bit. The iceplant is taken out, fairway is mowed around the tree on #16, native areas are pushed farther away (#2, #3, #15 among others), runoffs on #1 and #7 are removed, clumsy landscaping is installed on #4 (non-native plants) and #12 (flowerbed).

It's still my second-favorite course (behind Knollwood, IL). But I don't exactly think it's going in the right direction. Fair enough if they want to moderate the difficulty a little for everyday play, but the landscaping stuff bothers me. The 4th green is shown below. Even if you don't like the old iceplant version, I just don't think the current version in the second picture looks right. It doesn't look natural to me in the way that the vegetation on the back dune has nothing to do with the native vegetation on the left side of the picture — it's clearly been planned and created.

One way or another, why can't they make the vegetation in the back match the stuff in the front? Why are they missing this?

Which of these two pictures am I supposed to prefer? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl,

Neither, they're of the same hole, just from different angles.

[Bill_McBride]

Carl,

Neither, they're of the same hole, just from different angles.

The first is before, with loads of ice plant to enhance your misery. 

The second has the ice plant removed and a sandy waste laid in one the player's left. 

The question Matt Cohn posed was, which am I supposed to prefer. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl,

Neither, they're of the same hole, just from different angles.

The first is before, with loads of ice plant to enhance your misery. 

The second has the ice plant removed and a sandy waste laid in one the player's left. 

The question Matt Cohn posed was, which am I supposed to prefer. 

If that was his question, and you want to make an attempt at objectivity, then both photos should have been taken from the same spot, one before, one after.

[BCowan]

bottom photo

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl,

Neither, they're of the same hole, just from different angles.

The first is before, with loads of ice plant to enhance your misery. 

The second has the ice plant removed and a sandy waste laid in one the player's left. 

The question Matt Cohn posed was, which am I supposed to prefer. 

Bill,

It doesn't matter which one we prefer, the ice plant is gone, never to return again.

You'll be playing under conditions depicted in the bottom photo.

[Bill_McBride]

Carl,

Neither, they're of the same hole, just from different angles.

The first is before, with loads of ice plant to enhance your misery. 

The second has the ice plant removed and a sandy waste laid in one the player's left. 

The question Matt Cohn posed was, which am I supposed to prefer. 

Bill,

It doesn't matter which one we prefer, the ice plant is gone, never to return again.

You'll be playing under conditions depicted in the bottom photo.

It's really a pretty simple question.   Did you prefer the look before, or the look today?  They are quite different. 

[Carl Nichols]

Putting aside the fact that the angles are obviously different, I thought Matt's point was that the bottom of the two pictures showed a move toward using vegetation that didn't fit, and thus he liked the look in the top picture better (or at least the vegetation in the top picture).  My reaction was the opposite -- the bottom picture, to me, looks more like the surrounding area.  But maybe I misread his post.