News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Brian Moran

  • Karma: +0/-0
5th at Pebble
« on: February 04, 2023, 10:26:55 AM »
It's that time of year again. The Crosby Clambake is upon us which means criticisms of Pebble are in abundance in GCA spaces. Most controversial so far has been Garrett Morrison's critique of the 5th.

Pebble has warranted strong critiques that people often fail to understand fully. There's no more beautiful a piece of land over which we can play our game in the world. Even if it was just a cow pasture, Pebble would be enjoyable to play. It's our favourite sport played over some of the world's most beautiful terrain. Anyone who says they wouldn't enjoy that in some respects is a liar.

The reason these critiques are warranted is the "With great power comes great responsibility" cliche. 99.999% of golf courses aren't given this level of opportunity in terms of setting. Therefore, it should come as a huge red flag that Pebble is universally ranked below a field near Pittsburgh with a highway running through it or a tiny piece of property tucked against residential roads near Philly. I've only played maybe 2 dozen of the "Top 100" courses in the country, yet I wouldn't include Pebble in my top 20. Any day spent in that location, even without golf, is extremely memorable. But the fact that it vastly fails to meet its potential is a disgrace to our game. So while they may be annoying, it's completely fair to yearn for more out of this special site.

Now, on to the inspiration for this post, the 5th at Pebble. One thing to note is that given the history of this hole, I am confident that had Morse originally owned this piece of land, the 4th and 6th holes would not be in their present positions. Therefore, the 5th inherently feels awkward in the routing. Schwab was very gracious to give this land to the golf course, but he didn't give more than the bear minimum. One thing that jumped out at me when I played it for the first time was just how tight a piece of land it is.

The green is placed in an awkward position overlooking the hill to the left of 6 fairway. This could be a cool falloff if utilized in an infinity green esque fashion, but the bunker, rough, and idiotic saplings behind the green destroy this opportunity. Secondly, you could easily play this hole and forget the cliff is even there. The bunkering and way the green sits makes the eyes go to the left. The green itself isn't bad, but like many at Pebble, it lacks much strategic intrigue.

My proposal would be to use two other designs in California as a muse for this hole, and continue on from there. First, the land between the forward tee and the fairway is extremely severe, but is hidden by rough. Create bunkering similar to 16 at Lake Merced to visually intimidate the player. Second, bring the cliff further into play by creating a green similar to 15 at LACC, except with a fall off to the left on the back half of the green. By adding these features and possibly some fall off bunkers at the rear tied in with 6 fairway, you create a memorable hole.

The Fifth is not alone in the lust for more out of the piece of land. The awkward bunkering and shrunken, uninspiring greens make many holes feel a bit out of place. No, I don't want to see the fake dunes on 7 come back, but what if you just brought back the slopes in the green and made the bunkering look a bit more natural? The cliffs around it are rugged, so why is the outline of the bunkering so smooth?


A common excuse given for why Pebble won't adapt is that they have no incentive to. They still pump through hundreds of golfers a day, bringing in massive revenues, so why would they close holes to make tweaks? This isn't a valid concern, as they've already proven that they're willing to do so. I was extremely disappointed to find the 8th green to be closed upon my maiden voyage to Pebble this past summer, and learned that much of the winter saw bunkers out of play as they were improved for the Women's Open next year. If they wanted to, possibly aside from the 7th, they could get away with it. Their only incentive to change has seemingly been the USGA, as seen by the bunker upgrades and flattening of greens to add more pinnable areas. With the direction many USGA and PGA venues are going, I can only hope there's pressure on Pebble to change a bit, but highly doubt there is.

My goal in this post was to give a better understanding of Pebble's critiques, showing it's not black and white, but also inspire a conversation about how it could improve with minimal efforts. Do you agree with my logic? If not, I respect and would value to hear your opinion. If so, what other holes would you want to see utilize the land a bit better? (But please, for humanity's sake, don't say restore the 7th, we've all already seen that picture)


Matt_Cohn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 5th at Pebble
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2023, 10:58:20 AM »
Without commenting, I don’t understand what you mean about a green like 15 at LACC.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: 5th at Pebble
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2023, 01:55:54 PM »
Brian:


I would venture that the main part of the problem is that Pebble is owned by 300 of the richest men in America, and I can't think of a single one of them who has any real interest in golf course architecture.  Plus, Jack Nicklaus designed the 5th hole, and those 300 guys are going to respect him more than you [or me].


The only input they're likely to listen to is whatever the USGA is telling them.  Mike Davis, at least, had an interest in golf course design, though he may have tended to become more involved than necessary.  I'm not sure that any of his successors have any interest at all.


Jim Sherma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 5th at Pebble
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2023, 03:21:00 PM »
The idea that any real changes will be forthcoming is probably a nonstarter. However I think the question as to the impact on the initial routing if that land had been available is very interesting. Clearly anything we say here would only be conjecture. I agree that the walk back to 6's current tee would not have been the natural solution after a par 3 along the water where the current 5th is. A possible solution might have been having the 4th play as a longer par 4 with a forced carry to a green somewhere at or past the current 5th's tee. This followed by a par 3 up the hill similar to the original 5th but . That would keep the 6-7-8 holes as we know them while making use of the greater ocean frontage. If you end up with the 5th green where it currently is but without the legacy of the rest of the routing, what would a more natural routing that did not involve the long walk up to the current 6th tee.

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 5th at Pebble
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2023, 04:57:53 PM »
Brian:


I would venture that the main part of the problem is that Pebble is owned by 300 of the richest men in America, and I can't think of a single one of them who has any real interest in golf course architecture.  Plus, Jack Nicklaus designed the 5th hole, and those 300 guys are going to respect him more than you [or me].


The only input they're likely to listen to is whatever the USGA is telling them.  Mike Davis, at least, had an interest in golf course design, though he may have tended to become more involved than necessary.  I'm not sure that any of his successors have any interest at all.


The USGA could host the US Open in a cow pasture (bow to Dave Hill) and they still would make a ton of money. To its credit, the next 30 years of US Open venues are pretty darn good. That also is true for the US Women’s Open and the Walker Cup. I think that the USGA has its head in the ground on equipment and expanding the game, but respect for architecture does not seem like a fair criticism unless Mike Davis made all of the future venue decisions before he left.


Ira

Matt_Cohn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 5th at Pebble
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2023, 08:01:31 PM »
The idea that any real changes will be forthcoming is probably a nonstarter. However I think the question as to the impact on the initial routing if that land had been available is very interesting. Clearly anything we say here would only be conjecture. I agree that the walk back to 6's current tee would not have been the natural solution after a par 3 along the water where the current 5th is. A possible solution might have been having the 4th play as a longer par 4 with a forced carry to a green somewhere at or past the current 5th's tee. This followed by a par 3 up the hill similar to the original 5th but . That would keep the 6-7-8 holes as we know them while making use of the greater ocean frontage. If you end up with the 5th green where it currently is but without the legacy of the rest of the routing, what would a more natural routing that did not involve the long walk up to the current 6th tee.


That's an interesting question and an interesting idea. Fun to try to come up with possibilities. Is there any historical record of a plan that included the land where #5 is now?