[Tom Huckaby]

JC:
6 is a narrow golf hole, but 7 is more so, and I've played a LOT of holes that are a lot narrower than either.  Yes both of these holes are out of character with the rest of the course - but as you read here, they are so due to late tree planting.  They are the two worst holes on the golf course.  So if you want to say that about either, you will get no argument from me.  But when you call #6 "dreadful" and the other adjectives you've used, that to me is just taking it way too far.  6 is a pretty darn good golf hole even as it is today... If this is a dreadful golf hole as you see things, consider yourself VERY VERY lucky in the high standards that you have.

Note re 16, I tend to agree... see the current Pasa photo thread.  Only this:  if you think the back tier is much, good lord I hope you never play to a middle tier pin.

TH

[Glenn Spencer]

it reminds me of a woman lying on her back.

And what's so wrong with that?

Yeah, Seriously.

[Glenn Spencer]

Jason,

I think we did have this discussion. You obviously know it better than I do. I actually tried to hit a block cut off the tee. I think 4 ended up in the bunker and 1 in the water. I made par from the water, you are right it is closer to the green than you think. I just get the sense that Foster was trying to make a splash with that hole and it was NOT necessary. Could be me, but it was one of my all-time disappointing ways to finish out a round. If not for that hole, the golf course could be one of my favorite ten, instead it comes in around 40-50.

[Paul Payne]

Glenn, Jason,

It was interesting to read both your comments. I probably tend to side more with Jason, but I certainly understand your criticism Glenn,

My experience has been that palyers with a slicing drive dread this hole. The reason is that the safe area to the left before the bunker does not appear as large as it really is from the tee. The tendency is to take it too straight and fade it into the drink.

I tend to hit a pretty straight drive so if I play up I try to carry the bunker and leave it just beyond the tip, if I play back I try to flirt with the waters edge to try and have a shot at the green in two. To Jasons point, that is what I think makes the hole exciting, it can be done in two but even if you have the distance, the line is tight unless you plan on a short bailout to the front and left of the green, but then the bunkers are in play.

What I don't like is what Jason said, it doesn't fit in with the rest of the course. Not just in appearance but in how it plays. To me Harvester in general offers a lot of choices and opportunities for different shots from tee to green. 18 is really a heroic target golf hole and therefore stands out from the rest of the course in a big way.

If I was going to change it I think I would consider reworking the fairway to the left a bit and putting the green on the middle penninsula and making it a par 4. I think you could come up with a really great hole with the creek and lake still protecting the green.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

[tlavin]

Weak holes at Pebble:

1,2,3,4,6,7

Just in terms of the landforms, I don't know that I'd call 6 and 7 weak, but I do think 15 is weak and 16 isn't all that fabulous, either.  Which begs the question: Does Pebble have the largest number of weak holes for a great course.  I think the answer has to be yes.

[Paul Payne]

OK I am truly puzzled!

I have been reading this thread periodically and it seems Pebble Beach is taking some hits. I have never played there so I cannot really comment but I am curious.....

Is Pebble Beach only a great course because of it's history??

Why does it get so much good press around here at other times???

Why does it rise so high not only in the published rankings but also in the many personal "best" lists that have shown up on this site from time to time?

I'm head-scrathin' here.

[wsmorrison]

Ironically, one of the best holes on the course was turned into the worst one at Philadelphia Country Club when the clubhouse was moved.  Unfortunately, it is the final hole so it cannot be hidden.  

The hole was 435 yard par 4 over rolling terrain from the current forward 18th tee to the current practice green.  Today, the tees are tucked into the corner of the property and it is a 392 yard dogleg right hole (driver and lofted iron approach) to a very tilted and narrow green with contours not found elsewhere on the course (William Gordon). It is a shame.  Maybe the green should be remodeled and placed down the slope of the built up green (should be reduced) closer to the squash courts.

[John_Conley]

JC:
6 is a narrow golf hole, but 7 is more so, and I've played a LOT of holes that are a lot narrower than either.  

No complaints here - I bombed it in front of the green on 7, tossed in a little pitch, and then missed my 10' birdie putt.

Why I'm troubled by 6 and not 7 is that the penalty for an errant shot on 6 is OB left (forget errant, it looks like a tugged draw could roll out on the baked land) and the penalty on 7 is just some trees.  No big deal.

The punishment doesn't fit the crime when you hug the left side of a fairway with OB, add a path for golf car traffic, and then slope a mound to add kicks in that direction.  In one word - Ugh.

Also, Pete Galea explained why all the trees have been added.  I understand.

[JLahrman]

it reminds me of a woman lying on her back.

And what's so wrong with that?

Yeah, Seriously.

Because it is frowned upon to lie face-down in the trench?  I just don't care for the green, or much about the hole.  By far my least favorite hole at Camargo.

[Tom Huckaby]

JC:

The left side of 6 is a boundary of the golf course... if you dislike that, you must dislike all out of bounds.  That's OK... I just figure it's a fact of golf life.

And there are no mounds or anything that kick the ball left.  It's all pretty flat after you crest the hill after your drive.  Yes the cart path is there on the left, and that is unfortunate... but again, I don't see any huge issues here.  Again it's not really all that narrow - and if left bothers you, just aim right.  Hell without the OB it would be a pretty boring 2nd shot... with the OB it really makes one think before challenging the green - which is fantastic, btw.

Once again, I get not being too jazzed about the hole.  I get if you want to call it the worst hole on that course.

I just don't get calling it the adjectives you have - and you've now added another.    It is far from a bad golf hole.

TH

[tlavin]

OK I am truly puzzled!

I have been reading this thread periodically and it seems Pebble Beach is taking some hits. I have never played there so I cannot really comment but I am curious.....

Is Pebble Beach only a great course because of it's history??

Why does it get so much good press around here at other times???

Why does it rise so high not only in the published rankings but also in the many personal "best" lists that have shown up on this site from time to time?

I'm head-scrathin' here.

It deserves its vaunted place in the Top 100 lists despite the undeniable fact that at least four or five holes are downright mundane, because the rest of the holes are so spectacular, both in terms of the natural terrain and in terms of the design of the holes themselves.  Then you throw in the history of the place and you have a Top 5 golf course with five or so nothing golf holes.  

[Tom Huckaby]

I'd say Terry has it right.  Oh, I tend to argue also that the "nothing" holes are each a bit more than that... but heck it is arguable anyway that they are such.  In any case it doesn't matter because the whole is exactly as Terry states.

TH

[Paul Payne]

I guess I've always understood this about Pebble, but what surprised me was the numbers that were posted on this thread. summed up it reads:

Bad holes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 15, 16

Good holes: 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18  (even #7 was debated)

Questionable: 5, 11, 13, 14

This presents a far more mundane picture than I would have expected. I guess I'll just take this in context and chuck it. Just a little surprised is all.

[Tom Huckaby]

Paul:

I'd say you ought to just take that in the context of there are a lot of people here who for whatever reason are simply anti-Pebble.. or at least they are the ones posting on this thread.  Ask the question in a different way, or to a different audience, and you will get very different results.  I look at that list and just laugh... There is no way any of 2, 3, 4 or 6 are bad golf holes; far far far from it.  And to call 5, 11, 13, 14 questionable is downright laughable also...

Truly the only even arguably mundane golf holes are 1, 12, 15, 16.  And even each of those have their strong points.

TH

[Robert Gusick]

#8 @ Quaker Ridge.  Short par 4.  Big hairy mound in the middle of the fairway, with small landing strips of fairway on either side.  For a player of my ability (10 hcp), I aim right at it, and hope I don't hit the ball straight.

As for the other 17 holes.... GREAT!

[David_Madison]

9 at Oakmont.  It is fun for someone like me to have a go at eagle, but it probably is the weakest hole on the course.

When #9 is played as a par-4, is it then a bad or weak hole? No matter the par assigned, it's sure not an easy driving hole, the approach has all kinds of moving parts, and then you are dealing with a famous and really interesting green.

[Ryan Farrow]

9 at Oakmont.  It is fun for someone like me to have a go at eagle, but it probably is the weakest hole on the course.

When #9 is played as a par-4, is it then a bad or weak hole? No matter the par assigned, it's sure not an easy driving hole, the approach has all kinds of moving parts, and then you are dealing with a famous and really interesting green.

Well put David, it seems Tommy's complaint has to deal with how hard the hole is played to par but even then he must be out of his mind. It is by far one of the most strategic holes at Oakmont and has a world class green. What more do you want from this hole? Please tell me.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Hey guys, I never said nine at Oakmont was either bad or weak.  On a course full of great holes I feel that 9 is the weakest.  Since it is a par five and not a par four it probably is the easiest hole to make a par.  

[David_Madison]

Tommy,

Sorry for the confusion. I've only played the course twice (right before the recent Am) and from that and seeing the course used for the Open, I only knew of the hole as a par-4 (similar to #8 at Pinehurst #2). As I hit mid-irons in both times, that's what the hole felt like to me as I played it as well. I agree that as a par-5 it's pretty easy as compared to par and the rest of the course. But when looking at the quality of the shot requirements to succeed at this hole, it's pretty high up there as an examination of your game.  

[Philippe Binette]

I didn't understood what exactly was the 8th at Kingsbarns

The 11th at Troon (from the Open tee...) if there was no spectator in the Open they would still be trying to finish the 1997 Open.... Blind shot to a 35 yards wide hole with gorse on both side.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()