[herrstein@aol.com]

I have posted some more BS on this topic in the other thread, but to respond:
Pat,
I do mean plopped down in Kansas on the same terrain; the point is to take away the ocean. I think Lookout would suffer the loss of the view, but it would still be a good course. NGLA would be as great in Kansas as it is on Long Island, given you could look off into a prisine landscape from #17 tee. Same with the rest of your list- I don't think they would suffer so much if plopped down in Kansas, given identical terrain (OK pick another inland state that ain't so flat).. And don't get me wrong- Pebble is still a great golf course, and I play it twice a year minimum, even at those outrageous fees, because it is just flat out cool. But it doesn't have the architectural merit of Cypress or San Francisco, to mention two of the others I try to hit every time I am out there.
If the wind is still, it is not very challenging for the most part. I think what bothers me most architecturally is that #9 and #10 are essentially the same hole- same shots required- back to back. I just wish the tee shots had more visual and strategic interest. on the ground. The ocean is nice, but something could have been done. The same is true of # 11, for that matter.
I think the #2 green complex is wonderful, by the way. But the tee shot looks like a driving range, and without the wind, that double cool cross bunker is not a factor.
Overall, most of the weakness in my opinion is in the tee shots. I love the green complexes- even #1 has merit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Darren,

I've never laid eyes on PD so I'm totally unqualified to comment on the golf course other than to ask you one question.

Can a course that has a nine with four par 3's, three par 5's and only two par 4's be ranked as highly as some suggest ?

With regard to # 2 at PB, from the BACK tee, it is a very good risk/reward par 5, the bunkers and the barranca are genuine hazards, and just because a par 5 can be reached in two, that doesn't disqualify it from being a good hole.  The greensite is protected by barranca, bunkers and the road.

# 14 is a good hole that gets more challenging as you get closer to the hole.
An ongoing test of progressive difficulty.
Especially with a breeze.

Would # 17 green and the hole appeal to you more, if the front portion of the green didn't exist ?  Would it be a better par 3 ?

[kilfara]

Pat, you are obviously a very intelligent individual. Why do I find it almost impossible to carry on a civil discourse with you?

Can a course that has a nine with four par 3's, three par 5's and only two par 4's be ranked as highly as some suggest?

If they're nine great golf holes, why not? (I can't really see the point of this question.)

With regard to # 2 at PB, from the BACK tee, it is a very good risk/reward par 5, the bunkers and the barranca are genuine hazards, and just because a par 5 can be reached in two, that doesn't disqualify it from being a good hole. The greensite is protected by barranca, bunkers and the road.

Are you trying to equate difficulty with quality? And are you saying that the hole is good from the back tees but mediocre from the front? (A good hole should be good for everyone.)

My problem with no. 2 is that it begins with a boring tee shot and continues along a boring fairway with no definition and no undulation. It's not a terrible hole, but to me it has always said, "Right, well, we've got these really neat ocean holes coming up, but in order to make the course add up to 18 holes we're going to have to chew up a little real estate along the way."

# 14 is a good hole that gets more challenging as you get closer to the hole.
An ongoing test of progressive difficulty.
Especially with a breeze.

Difficult, yes. Captivating? As far as I'm concerned, not really. It's quite a slog - two good shots - to get into a position where the hole starts to get interesting. And if you don't hit two good shots, the slog is three or more shots long, and if you have to hit a long iron into the green, you're pretty much screwed (not only is it impossible to stop the ball on the top tier, the right side bail-out is terribly small and not very welcoming even if you find it). On another hole, the green complex would be a wonderful change of pace, but I'd guess that for a majority of golfers it's almost unplayable. (Don't forget the OB right about five yards off the fairway!)

Would #17 green and the hole appeal to you more, if the front portion of the green didn't exist? Would it be a better par 3?

I'd actually given that exact question some thought before you asked it. Yes, I think it would appeal to me a little more if the right half of the green were eliminated - but keep the slope on the right side of the back half of the green to kick balls in from the right - just because you'd then be assured of playing the hole in its more exciting guise toward the end of your $350 experience.   It wouldn't be a better par 3 as such, though, because it'd still be the same hole you get when the pin is cut back there. What the hole really needs, in my humble opinion, is an ever-so-slightly elevated tee to give the dramatic setting some perspective. The green complex looks great from the CBS tower, but from the tee the effect is rather underwhelming.

With that, I feel like I should stop commenting about Pebble Beach. I sense something rather partisan about some of the posts both for and against Pebble - I'm probably as much at fault as anyone else - which is muddying the waters of objective analysis for me. I almost feel as though people looking at intangible factors first and then conjuring analysis to back their gut instincts, instead of the other way around, which seems to lead to heated arguments instead of spirited debate - which is not what I'm after at all.

Cheers,
Darren

[Patrick_Mucci]

Darren,

To answer your questions in reverse order,
an elevated tee on # 17 would enhance the view of the hole, and make it a little easier

With the right front eliminated, it might be too hard a hole for the average to high handicap player.

If you feel the routing is valid at PB, you have to go from # 13 green to # 14 green, and I don't find # 14 to be a weak hole, I find it to be a good hole requiring three well managed shots.

With regard to # 2, from the BACK tee the bunkers come into play on the drive,
and the second shot calls for a decision,
go for it or lay up.  I think the green site and surrounds are good.
I don't think it's a weak hole anymore than the 5th hole at NGLA is a weak hole.  On the inland terrain I just don't think the architect has the use of the same assets.

Many people have not played the BACK tee, and many people have a tendency to view a golf hole in the context of its play by the greatest players in the world, the tour pros.
Some people feel that because the pros can hit a par 5 with a drive and medium to short iron, that the hole is considered a weak hole.  The last two times I played # 2 there was a good misting wind in my face, and the hole provided plenty of challenge, rewarding good decisions and shotmaking, and penalizing the opposite.

With regard to PD, perhaps I didn't explain my question thoroughly enough.

Suppose there were five par 3's, three par 5's and only one par 4, and they were all good holes.  Would that configuration put a taint on the course's greatness ?

Now suppose there were nine (9) par 3's, and they were all good holes.  Would that put a taint on the course's greatness ?

In other words, is there a threshold, where the configuration of the holes, no matter how good they are, prevents the GOLF COURSE
from being perceived as great ?

Has the point of my question acquired clarity ?    

Doug Stein,

I would agree that the tee shots at # 9 and
# 10 are similar, but the green sites are vastly different, with # 9 being one of the most challenging shots you could ask for.
People rave about the challenge of # 8, but # 9 is pretty close.

[BillV]

Combining a little from both threads

-if you compare the 1929 design
-if you take out the cart paths
-a few holes give the player pace
-a breather or two to develop ebb/flow
-12 is not a mutt
-Patrick, provide us with the plain topo maps to do the new routings
-if I ever play it again on someone else's dime....
-who do you bribe to play the hallowed (music, please) back tees?
-how can you avoid a looooooooooong round?

(See Patrick, my comprehension is better than my writing or at least my typing!)

Best point?
Other than ANGC which has become a sham and is also such a target, What other top 5 or 10 course do we make so many excuses for?  And don't forget the fog!  

Pine Valley isn't 7000 yds!
Shinnecock is nothing without the wind!
Oakmont is nothing without those ridiculous greens!
Crystal Downs?  They forgot #9 fer chrissake!
Merion!  With those unaesthetic bunkers?
Shadow Creek? Victoria?  They're manufactured!  

Who else gets by with so many detractors?  Can you say sacred cow???  The list of better, granted is short...Shinnecock, Cypress, NGLA, haven't played Oakmont yet, can't imagine ANGC exceeding PB,... yet it gets called #1 or #2 routinely. But we're supposed to nitpick at this level, aren't we?.

Good, lively exercise, though. Interesting, well-defended bi-modal distribution of replies.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

You ask a fair question: is there a point where the configuration of a golf course "puts a taint on the course's greatness"?

Of course.

Does PD has cross this threshold?

Not in my judgment. I doubt many people will even notice.

[kilfara]

Pat,

With the right front eliminated (on no. 17), it might be too hard a hole for the average to high handicap player.

So when the pin is in the back/left half of the current green, you think the hole is too hard for the average and high handicap player? (In my redesigned hole, you could mow the right half of the green to fairway height and offer that as a bail out area - it's easier to pitch the ball over the skinny bit of the hourglass than it is to putt the ball through it.)

I'll ignore the middle of your post because I don't want to get my blood pressure up on account of PB any more.  

Suppose there were five par 3's, three par 5's and only one par 4, and they were all good holes. Would that configuration put a taint on the course's greatness ?

Now suppose there were nine (9) par 3's, and they were all good holes. Would that put a taint on the course's greatness ?

In other words, is there a threshold, where the configuration of the holes, no matter how good they are, prevents the GOLF COURSE
from being perceived as great ?

Has the point of my question acquired clarity ?

Yes, it has.   And a fair question it is, too. I would say that yes, there is a threshold, but no, it is not exceeded at Pacific Dunes. If the front nine at PD had only two par 4s, it would almost certainly exceed the 18-hole threshold, but it has seven of them, so this is not a problem.

Cheers,
Darren

[THuckaby2]

BillV - no bribery necessary for back tees - you just have to have the proper amount of chutzpah.  True story:

TH arriving at first tee at Pebble for round with some good buddies, very excited about treading these hallowed grounds again.

TH notices every single group playing whites, which are set way up, with starters podium, etc. set up there also.

This intrigues TH, who has never played the whites at Pebble and has no desire to start (he's no tee egotist, but at this course he knows what he can do and enjoys playing the tees the pros do).

Group arrives at first tee, friends go to whites.  TH begins to trod back to blue.

Starter to TH:  "excuse me sir, those tees are for 5 handicap and below."

Now those who have met TH can understand the starter's assumption.  Let's just say he LOOKS as much like a player as Craig Stadler does when he's skiing.

Still, this irks TH.

TH to starter:  "well how do you know I'm not?"

Dumbfounded starter:  "sir, we do recommend all players play from the white tees."

More irked TH:  "I thought you said they were for 5 handicap and below."

Starter:  "sir, please believe me, you will enjoy your round far more from the white tees."

TH:  "thank you for the advice, but I have indeed played here many times and I know what I can handle."

TH then continues marching back and faces one of the more pressure-packed tee shots of his golf career.  All the tourists have heard this exchange and TH, already feeling like somewhat of a pompous idiot, will REALLY confirm those feelings if he hits a bad tee shot.

TH proceeds to lace a 3wood out to the corner, perfect.

Starter to TH:  "nice shot."

TH, smiling sweetly:  "thank you."

The caddies were busting up....

Sorry for the third person.  That's just so unlike my normal "whatever" self it seemed easier to re-state that way.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Darren:

In fairness to Pat Mucci et al, the discussion of Pebble Beach on various threads has been “civil”, don't you think?

I’ve been surprised by some of the comments offered in defense of Pebble (e.g., Matt Ward’s description of the middle tees as a “lessor version”) but certainly not offended.

Most of the points made in defense of Pebble I agree with.  The setting, if not “incomparable”, is clearly one of the very best.  The course, especially when set up by the USGA, is a very difficult championship test.  The small greens are hard to hit.  By any comparison, the course has a number of great holes.  The “figure eight” routing probably takes advantage of the property as well as anyone can imagine.

These are points where I think there is near universal consensus.

Is there also near universal consensus concerning the parts of Pebble (as much as a third of the course) that don’t quite measure up to its lofty overall reputation?

Apparently not in our tree house!

Prior to this discussion, I would have said there was.   We all know Jack Nicklaus called Pebble his favorite course in the world, but most of my West Coast friends lost interest after playing it a few times.  

Nobody calls St Andrews “overrated”.   By contrast, I used to hear that all the time in regards to Pebble.   Maybe my friends just had too big an expense account and were frustrated it wasn’t very useful down the street.

Tom Huckaby:

Great story!

[THuckaby2]

Tim - thanks.  Never have I felt like such an idiot and so great in the same minute.

But re:

"Maybe my friends just had too big an expense account and were frustrated it wasn’t very useful down the street."

I'd say that might be spot on.  It's still curious to me though how different our friends are... I'm like Adam and have yet to meet anyone who had anything but love for PB, no matter how many times they played it.  Like I say, I think I'm at over a dozen playings myself and I'd sure tee it up there today if I were rich... I can't see ever tiring of it.

Interesting lesson in perspective...

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I don't know how much money influences perspective on architectural matters.

My West Coast friends with unlimited expense accounts were bored with Pebble, almost embarrassed to entertain there. The attitude was "been there, done that".

My Irish friends with very little money were quickly bored with Old Head even if someone else was paying the bill.  They would rather go play Dooks.  "Much more fun" was the way they put it.

[THuckaby2]

Tim - holy cow, I can't imagine a world where one is bored to entertain at Pebble.

That to me is mind-boggling.

So where do these guys ENJOY entertaining?

TH

ps Old Head I can understand most definitely the sentiment.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill V,

One of the ways, perhaps the only way to insure a fast round, is to tee off first, which is what I arrnaged on several days.

I also lucked out in that one of the assisstant pros was from West Orange, N.J. and I played a practical joke on him that everyone seemed to enjoy, including the recipient.  Hence I was able to be directed and accomodated with respect to the best approach to play PB.

I also arranged to be the last tee off of the day, so I had all the time I wanted to experiment and have fun.

I also had the names of several excellent caddies, who were very good players, so it was a perfect combination.

With a cart path only rule, the first cart foursome probably sets the early pace at about five (5) hours, with later rounds approaching six (6) hours.

Those who think Pebble's routing is weak will have to supply their own topo's to display their improved version.

I had no problem playing the BACK tees, and after the 1st tee, who would know the difference ?

Tom Huckaby,

Great story, and boy is there pressure to hit a good one.

My foursome had similar experiences at Congressional and Loxahatchee.  Probably two of the most satisfying tee shots I ever hit.

[ForkaB]

Tom H

I'll let you hit off first in our golfing adventures in a few weeks.  If I do they'll probably move us to the senior tees.

Tim W

If you really think that nobody calls St. Andrews "overrated" you haven't gotten out enough and you obviously did not buy me enough drink up in Bandon .

[THuckaby2]

Patrick - maybe it's the venue, maybe it's because I haven't played all that much in front of crowds, but the only comparable "ass-tightener" tee shot I've experienced is #1 at The Old Course.  That should be an easy shot but with the R&A members and hundreds of tourists looking on, the knowledge of where one is striking one like a hammer in the chest, all the ghosts flying around... that ob right comes strangely into play, for me anyway!

Of course, clamoring for the back tee and making a big deal out of it does tighten the sphincter even more....

TH

[THuckaby2]

Rich: puh-leeze.  You go ahead and hit first and I'll do my best to keep up.  Those who have played with you here are NOT buying this soft-sell!

And re tees, hey the purple challengers are fine for me if it means playing period.  I ought not to have told that story, I guess... I am absolutely NOT a tee egotist.  That snit of a starter just kinda set it as a challenge, you know?

TH

ps - I too have heard TOC called over-rated plenty.  Please forgive me, St. Naccarato.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()