Pebble Beach No. 5 (Old and New)

« **Reply #100 on:** February 11, 2007, 03:48:31 PM »

Quote from: Greg Tallman on February 11, 2007, 03:31:57 PM

I must say that a week is not quite complete without one of these "debates" that assume there is one answer.

Have you two ever played a round of golf together?

Yes, several, and we had a thoroughly enjoyable time, all the time, including, but not limited to, breakfast, lunch, dinner, the bar and after hours comraderie.[/color]

« **Reply #101 on:** February 11, 2007, 03:53:59 PM »

Patrick:

The day YOU need a new game is a sad day for us all. That trumps all discussions here. I'll just refuse to believe it until I see it.

Now back to the discussion at hand....

I think on the beauty issue we've gone as far as we can go. You don't count sightlines extending outward, I do. At least we've FINALLY distilled this down. Just careful going forward with the mischaracterizations of me thinking that's ALL that matters. That remains very far from the truth. It's just a part of the equation, and to me denying it as even a part seems silly. But you're a silly guy about other things too, so that's cool.

Your questions using the Sandpines example are meaningless also; for one I've never been there, but more importantly, just remember I said the course as you see it - ie within the boundaries of play - is of course the meat and potatoes of the assessment. My beef with you remains that you disregard sightlines going outward at all. I find it mind-boggling that anyone would think this, let alone try to defend it. But again vive l'difference, I suppose!

So back to PB5.... the bottom line re the routing is this: I found the old turn inland MORE jarring than the current walk back to 6 tee. And others have agreed with me on exactly this issue. But wasn't it also you who just said it doesn't matter if others agree?

Perhaps we found what's wrong with your golf game... is it the same thing that ails you in these arguments -consistency?

« **Reply #102 on:** February 11, 2007, 03:55:06 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on February 11, 2007, 03:37:50 PM

The fun part about this is yes, we have played the game together... and had a hell of a lot of fun doing so.

He schooled me big time playing the game. The man is one hell of a good player. He's also a helluva a lot of fun to spend time with.

Picture us both laughing and giving each other crap in these posts... that is the intent.

Greg,

If the truth be told, Tom Huckaby is the superior player.

I, on the other hand, have to rely on my understanding of architecture and how it relates to the play of the game in order to be competitive.

Things that are obvious to me are all but invisible to him.

And, that's where I leapfrog my worthy opponent.
Through the recognition and understanding of GCA.

Now do you understand why he doesn't see the disconnect in the routing from the new 5th green to the back tee on # 6 ?

« **Reply #103 on:** February 11, 2007, 03:56:47 PM »

Ok Patrick - that was GREAT.

I have to give this round to you.

But that doesn't mean I'm staying on my stool for the remainder of the bout.

« **Reply #104 on:** February 11, 2007, 04:00:38 PM »

Tom Huckaby,

Your response to Eric Franzen should have been:

"What the F-- do you know ?

You were far too polite.
Don't let anyone, without basis in fact or logic, try to disuade you from arguing your position.

As to my game, warm weather may help me find it.

« **Reply #105 on:** February 11, 2007, 04:04:43 PM »

Patrick: I'm not a Philadelphia or Jersey boy... but more importantly, I've also spent time with Eric and he's not only a good egg, but we are fans of the same soccer team...which if you're into pro soccer (huge for Europeans and me, non-existent for most Americans), well... that makes us brothers in a very definite way.

So he's ok.

And re your game, whew! Get ye down to Florida again, my friend.

« **Reply #106 on:** February 11, 2007, 04:19:49 PM »

Jim Lipe, Thanx for detailing the justifications. It sure was thourough, much appreciated and educational.
The size and pitch maybe the same as the old green but the shape is unique. Would you agree?

« **Reply #107 on:** February 11, 2007, 04:26:15 PM »

Adam
I am assuming that your definition of "unique" means "sole example" or "having no peer"...or something along that line.

So, with that definition, I would have to say no, that green shape isn't "unique" by any means....and it isn't any more "unique" than the original 5th green.

There are very few really unique things in golf these days.

« **Reply #108 on:** February 11, 2007, 05:04:38 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on February 11, 2007, 03:55:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on February 11, 2007, 03:37:50 PM

The fun part about this is yes, we have played the game together... and had a hell of a lot of fun doing so.

He schooled me big time playing the game. The man is one hell of a good player. He's also a helluva a lot of fun to spend time with.

Picture us both laughing and giving each other crap in these posts... that is the intent.

Greg,

If the truth be told, Tom Huckaby is the superior player.

I, on the other hand, have to rely on my understanding of architecture and how it relates to the play of the game in order to be competitive.

Things that are obvious to me are all but invisible to him.

And, that's where I leapfrog my worthy opponent.
Through the recognition and understanding of GCA.

Now do you understand why he doesn't see the disconnect in the routing from the new 5th green to the back tee on # 6 ?

First, allow me to thank you guys as I smile all too infrequently these days but am laughing heartily as I read and respond to your posts... this IS good stuff.

I DO understand Tom's assertion that a routing that continues to hug the coast is not disconnected as well as preferrable to the orginal. Not saying I agree or disagree.

I also understand your asssertion that a routing that does not ahve a tee in immediate proximity to the previous green is flawed.

I stand somewhere in the middle... seems safer... and more logical there.

JIM LIPE - I guess you will have to rework your designs for the new 6th and 7th to be cut greens as we would not want to do anything to upset the perception that this is all you know how to do! I'll ask Coach Rodriguez for his input as he'll be here next week playing... Then again with his swing I know he would prefer a cut green.

« **Reply #109 on:** February 11, 2007, 05:05:43 PM »

Quote from: JWL on February 11, 2007, 04:26:15 PM

Adam
I am assuming that your definition of "unique" means "sole example" or "having no peer"...or something along that line.

So, with that definition, I would have to say no, that green shape isn't "unique" by any means....and it isn't any more "unique" than the original 5th green.

There are very few really unique things in golf these days.

Jim, I'll give KB credit for being unique at Campetsre #3 green!

« **Reply #110 on:** February 11, 2007, 05:39:17 PM »

GT

Well, he is certainly unique, even if the 3rd isn't!
Cheers

« **Reply #111 on:** February 11, 2007, 05:48:41 PM »

Jim Lipe,

Thank you for sharing the backstory and design intent!

Mark

« **Reply #112 on:** February 11, 2007, 06:26:44 PM »

Quote from: JWL on February 11, 2007, 05:39:17 PM

GT

Well, he is certainly unique, even if the 3rd isn't!
Cheers

You mean all Buckeyes are not like him?

? I'm not so sure.

« **Reply #113 on:** February 11, 2007, 07:13:30 PM »

JWL, I'm with you and as much as I like Adam, well, why don't we get one more and let Adam find two others and we settle this streets of NY style.......at night on site...and they can choose....

« **Reply #114 on:** February 11, 2007, 07:23:17 PM »

PC...sounds like fun...but I'm afraid I am much to old for that kind of fun stuff anymore.
Hope to see you in Cabo on one of these trips.

« **Reply #115 on:** February 11, 2007, 08:10:32 PM »

I have an analogy that may want to be considered when comparing what the impact of the setting has on how well a golf hole is received.

There is a course in the bay area that I played often that has a hole simliar to the 16th at Cypress point. Here are the details.

1) From the White tees it is 219 yards to the middle of the green and a 205 yard carry over water to get there.
2) It has a bailout area left.
3) Both the tee box and green are elevated
4) It is mounded behind the green.
5) Water is in play short and to the right of the green.
6) It has 2 greenside bunkers.

But no one would ever mistake this hole as being anywhere remotely near the class of #16. Why? In my opinion because this hole sits inland and the body of water is a man made pond as compared to sitting on the edge of the ocean with surf pounding below.

In my opinion we have two like holes with many similarities in playing characteristics and hole attributes, but one is a world class par 3, considered by many as the finest in the world, and the other is completely forgetable.

Take #16 as Patrick would suggest and remove its location on the coast, and remove the ocean below and I don't think anyone would be talking about it being a world class hole.

« **Reply #116 on:** February 11, 2007, 09:48:54 PM »

Kalen,

I'm not so sure.

A chasm between tee and green, dry or wet, with the option to go directly at the green with a long approach or short to a bail out with a shorter approach has merit.

Is the 16th at CPC a world class hole or a world class setting ?

Or, is it a good hole with a great setting ?

If you have any pictures of the hole in the Bay area that you describe, it would be helpful.

It's hard to imagine a duplicate of the 16th at CPC, no matter where it is, not being recognized as a superior hole.

« **Reply #117 on:** February 11, 2007, 09:50:30 PM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on February 11, 2007, 11:12:12 AM

Sully- Let me get this straight. You've never seen the hole? Did you inspect the site pre-construction?

Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't think it preposterous.

Added:No one has even mentioned how well the green fits with the all the others. I'm sure a close examination by someone with a good eye would say, not.

Adam,

I've seen the current hole, never seen the original...my participation in this thread is limited to a little needle for Sir Huckaby, and an opinion of the current hole in its own right...plus the statement that your implication that the Nicklaus design team are one-trick ponies was completely out of line. I am thankful that Jim Lipe made the case he did as it covers all the bases.

When I played there it was 1999 and the green was fairly new (what, 2 or 3 years?). The grass was substantially different from the other 17 greens, as would be expected, and I would say it did not present the same knobby old look of the rest...I cannot imagine trying to build that in, and I would imagine that consistency with the rest of the course will come with time.

« **Reply #118 on:** February 12, 2007, 10:10:57 AM »

Patrick:

On Kalen's example, when you say the duplicate would be recognized as a "superior" hole, you don't mean superior to the original, right? You must mean superior in a general sense, I assume; ie that it would have to be looked at as a damn good golf hole.

And I'd agree about that. The hole Kalen describes sounds very tough and darn fun, giving options and strategic choices.

BUT.... here's where you have I have our paths diverge. For you that would seem to be enough, the end of the assessment. For me, the beauty that surrounds CPC is the icing on the cake that turns it from a world-class hole to perhaps the single greatest hole in the world. I think of it as a bonus; or if the views were categorically horrible, such would be a detraction. The views either positive or negative don't change the play for those with the best golf focus (we've argued this part before, I'll leave it out for now); however I'd argue that even for them, the appreciation and joy in playing the game period might be, as it certainly is for those with a mind toward appreciating such things. That's why I think it counts. And I know you limit it the play period in terms of swinging the club and striking the ball, and find my way to be another form of California touchy-feely nonsense. And maybe you're right; you're way is a lot easier to quantify.

But I gotta tell you, I've been with several groups of first-timers on 16 CPC, and when they stand on that tee, they're not discussing shot choices first. They only get to that after the oohs and ahhs subside at what their eyes are telling them. And the first pictures they take aren't a series of photos showing the shot choices available; no, damn near always it's either an individual or group photo taken on the tee with the green and only the green in the background, showing the crashing surf and peninsula beyond...

Which makes me believe that such things matter to others besides me as well.

In any case, Kalen does put an interesting slant on this. I've been wracking my brain to try and come up with what hole he's talking about... and it's not coming to me. Kalen, do tell... and then this might encapsulize this even better.

TH

« **Reply #119 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:47:16 PM »

Its the 18th hole at Delta View. The last hole on the new 9. The hole used to be a short par 4, but too many people kept hooking it into the street. So they shortened it to a very long par 3. And its a damn tough hole, I don't think I've ever parred it.

I'll try to locate a picture.

« **Reply #120 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:55:43 PM »

Kalen: yes! It's been awhile so no surprise I spaced out...

Here's a pic of the hole from their website:

It is a damn good hole by any take. And it ain't exactly ugly.

I just wonder if Pat or anyone would put it in the rareified air in which CPC16 exists. The shot requirements are very similar to CPC16. If it's not in that air, than why not?

I know my answer to this - same as yours already expressed - I'd just be very interested in his.

« **Reply #121 on:** February 12, 2007, 03:09:52 PM »

The fountain doesn't help out at all I know.

And the biggest difference is you can hit a 80 yard shot to the front of that pond and then another wedge over to the green. But in terms of how it plays as a 1 shotter, its really very very similar to CPC 16.

I guess given the fact that you couldn't remember it, that proves the "forgettable" part of my original assertion.

« **Reply #122 on:** February 12, 2007, 03:14:59 PM »

Quote from: Kalen Braley on February 12, 2007, 03:09:52 PM

I guess given the fact that you couldn't remember it, that proves the "forgettable" part of my original assertion.

Well, let's not get too carried away with that... ever see the Mr. Short Term Memory skits with Tom Hanks on SNL? That's me lately.

« **Reply #123 on:** February 12, 2007, 03:17:08 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on February 11, 2007, 09:48:54 PM

Kalen,

I'm not so sure.

A chasm between tee and green, dry or wet, with the option to go directly at the green with a long approach or short to a bail out with a shorter approach has merit.

Is the 16th at CPC a world class hole or a world class setting ?

Or, is it a good hole with a great setting ?

If you have any pictures of the hole in the Bay area that you describe, it would be helpful.

It's hard to imagine a duplicate of the 16th at CPC, no matter where it is, not being recognized as a superior hole.

Whether 16 at CPC really is a world class hole or not, I can't say. I've just often read that and heard people talk about with great revere, praise, and amazement. I guess I would say you can't really evulate a hole outside of its surrondings, whether or not they are actually in play.

On a similar note, I read an article of man who built a hole with the same dimensions as the 12th at AGNC in his backyard, (he owned a farm or something). Had the water hazard, bunkers, same distance, and so forth. The biggest different was he built it on a flat piece of land so the tee box was not elevated. Needless to say it had a picture of it in the article, and it was nothing of any note.

I personally think its almost impossible to remove the great holes from thier surrondings, because they often add so much to its greatness.

« **Reply #124 on:** February 12, 2007, 03:17:50 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on February 12, 2007, 03:14:59 PM

Quote from: Kalen Braley on February 12, 2007, 03:09:52 PM
I guess given the fact that you couldn't remember it, that proves the "forgettable" part of my original assertion.

Well, let's not get too carried away with that... ever see the Mr. Short Term Memory skits with Tom Hanks on SNL? That's me lately.

I gotta get my jabs in where I can, cause I'm usually on the other end of em

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Tom Huckaby

Patrick_Mucci

Tom Huckaby

Patrick_Mucci

Tom Huckaby

Adam Clayman

JWL

Greg Tallman

Greg Tallman

JWL

Mark Bourgeois

Greg Tallman

paul cowley

JWL

Kalen Braley

Patrick_Mucci

JESII

Tom Huckaby

Kalen Braley

Tom Huckaby

Kalen Braley

Tom Huckaby

Kalen Braley

Kalen Braley