Pebble Beach

« **Reply #25 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:04:37 AM »

If Pebble does one thing, it illustrates how "weak" holes are inherent to a quality design. Allowing for the ebb to the flow. Disecting individual holes is a flaw of many a modern critic and panelist. - Adam Clayman

I wish I knew how to copy quotes from others, so the above is my way of bringing it over!

I started a post the other day about "weak" holes on "great" courses, which kind of falls in line with Adam's comment.

Is this comment more inherent in "minimalist" designs than in other types? It would seem that way to me, as the architect is simply working with what the land gives them.

« **Reply #26 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:19:51 AM »

I played Pebble for the first time this August and actually went into it with managed expectations after reading the posts of many on this site. I have to concur with Huckaby. I was suprised how much I enjoyed my round.

I wish it were cheaper, but they have every right to charge what they can get. Putting aside cost, Pebble has to rank as one of the top experiences in golf. I also enjoyed the Plantation course, but I would never personally put it on the same level as Pebble.

Even the most jaded golfing soul out there has to get a visceral thrill seeing 18 for the first time from the large window in the Lodge.

« **Reply #27 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:22:39 AM »

Mike,
Pebble > Cypress? What are they putting in your KoolAid?

For a championship test I'll give it to you. For mortals:
1 Cypress
2 Cypress
3 Pebble
4 Cypress
5 Cypress
6 Pebble
7 Pebble
8 Pebble
9 Cypress
10 Pebble
11 Halved (great green at Pebble, tough hole at Cypress)
12 Cypress
13 Cypress
14 Pebble
15 Cypress
16 Cypress
17 Cypress
18 Pebble

Which holes do you see differently?

« **Reply #28 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:25:44 AM »

JES,
What courses in Philadelphia do you consider better than Pebble?

#6 is a great hole in my book.

« **Reply #29 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:32:43 AM »

Mike H. - again I say amen. Living an hour away, I get down there often (but not enough) and man I still get goosebumps every time I see 18.

Ed/Mike H.:

Cypress v. Pebble is not a comparison I like to make - I love them both so much, and being an adopted NorCaler like I am, it's kinda like comparing one's kids. OK that's taking it way too far, but hopefully you get the drift. In any case, the match play comparison is going to favor Cypress - as many have stated, Pebble has at least a few mundane holes, but as Adam says that helps the flow... he's right, no course has flow like Pebble. So I think one has to take it as a whole rather than trying to parcel it up....

And on the whole it's too close for me to call. OK, usually I'd give a tiny nod to Cypress, as I did in my Top 12 posted in that thread. But ask me tomorrow and it might go the other way. They are both very great and very, very special.

In any case Ed re the match play, I think I'd differ from you on:

1 - half
4 - Pebble
9 - half

The rest we can agree. But I still prefer to take it as a whole.

« **Reply #30 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:33:14 AM »

Never having been with 300 miles of the place...if there were any "public" course I could play (with cost NOT being an option) it would be Pebble, and I'm not sure what would be second (there are quite a few other great options!)

With cost and travel and all that being part of the equation...its still up there on my list of places to see once. It just seems like one of those places that everyone has to experience for themselves. Sure the expectations are high, but so be it.

« **Reply #31 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:35:43 AM »

Tom, its an opinion. I just happen to think a lot of Pebble is only average, most courses have a few duller holes and perhaps almost any course you can argue the various positive aspects of an individual holes merits anywhere. I think the PB history carries PB along quite a bit, as for holes like 1, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.... I've played many holes better than these, the 2nd reminds me a bit of a Surrey heath course and is quite nice. When i played about 89 I think, theold 5th was in, I could not see much in that hole, but the new one does in fairness look a great.The 6th and 17th in my opinion dont capture great views until you are actually on the green, as a great golf hole I just cant see much in 6, a tee shot you need to aim at the fairways edge or it topples intothe right rough, a blindsecond shot to a fairly boring green, I guess you can argue the merits of missing the green left and a tough up and down v a green falling away. I did not like the way 14 starts to sweep right at about 400-425 yards and the fairway sort of camberred the 'wrong way' the green seemed near impossible to me with only bout 20% of it usuable. To summarise those averagey things made me think PB is unworthy in the worlds top 10 and is not a greatest.

« **Reply #32 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:36:27 AM »

JES - this might be a time where your perspective as a top-flight competitor hinders you. Try to think of Pebble from the mortal's perspective... good lord is it pure unadulterated fun and pure fantastic spiritual inspiration. Of course you couldn't think that way either round you played... your aim was to dissect it for competitive purposes.

As a perfect test of golf, I'd say Pebble does fail compared to a LOT of golf courses.

As an inspirational feast for the golfer's soul, it bows to very, very few.

Try to think of it in that light.

BTW, left rough is better than right side fairway on 11 Pebble... similar to 10 Riviera... which makes sense given the greens are so similar.

And yes, 6 is a wonderful golf hole.

TH

« **Reply #33 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:39:52 AM »

Ed, off the top of my head (dangerous, I know)

1. Halved
2. PB
3. PB
4. PB
5. CP
6. PB
7. PB
8. PB
9. Halved
10. PB
11. Halved
12. CP
13. CP
14. Halved
15. CP
16. CP
17. Halved
18. PB

I don't expect many to agree with nos. 1 (I made 3 from 18 inches at CPC) and 17.

Mike

« **Reply #34 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:43:12 AM »

Adrian - mine is simply opinion also - we're just wildly off. If you see no scenic value on 6, and find that 14 is too cambered, see no value in 3... well.. we come from different worlds and it won't be productive to argue.

Vive l'difference!

TH

« **Reply #35 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:43:53 AM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on December 14, 2006, 10:23:36 AM

Jason, I too have to take exception with your opinion.

If Pebble does one thing, it illustrates how "weak" holes are inherent to a quality design. Allowing for the ebb to the flow. Disecting individual holes is a flaw of many a modern critic and panelist.

As for Prairie Dunes. I was there this year and we paid full boat. Never have I ever felt so over-charged for the experience. I liked the course well enough but it still was not worth the outrageous guest fees charged.

I've been invited back and would love to go, but, if the accompanied rate is the same as the unaccompanied, I will pass. Plus, the presentation of rough on that marvelous terrain, with those great greens, is unneeded, IMO. But somebody has to tell the better player where to go.

Adam,

The accompanied rate is less than a third of the unaccompanied rate at Prairie Dunes. I have no problem with unaccompanied rates being significantly higher. It is a private club after all..

« **Reply #36 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:44:08 AM »

Tom,
I can live with #1 and 4, but I'll never give up #9.

Pebble is just long hard and scenic. Cypress #9 is just amazing no matter how you try to play it, and the scenery doesn't suck.

« **Reply #37 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:45:41 AM »

Ed:

Mike H. halved 9 also.

I absolutely love #9 Cypress. I just don't think it's a clearly better golf hole than #9 Pebble. But it is rather apples and oranges... two holes could not possibly be more different at the same par. This illustrates the weakness of the match play approach.

TH

« **Reply #38 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:47:35 AM »

Scott, Minimalist designs? If you mean designs that fit their topography versus those that demolish everything and start all over? I'd say...it dosen't matter.

Places like Shadow creek are better because Mr. Fazio was able to restrain Mr. Wynn from the over-the-top inherent nature of showmanship designs.

Even Ballyneal has it's breather holes. #9 proves that the breath concept isn't limited to relief from difficulty, but also from a visceral and/or a visual break, after the remarkable stretch of #'s 6,7, and 8. #14 is another, and it provides a brief respit before the climax. Which can be formidable depending on wind speed and direction.

The greatest aspect of a breather hole is it's ability to lull the golfer into thinking it's a breather hole. Letting the golfers guard down, so to speak, and having him/her scratch their heads when they fail to overcome the hole with an under par score. Another reason this hole might get down graded is their performance on it.

15 at Pebble WAS the perfect breather prior to it's marvelous climax. No longer though, as most of the corporate clientel have trouble finding the reduced fairway, which has been littered with ridiculous and unnecessary center bunkers.

When golfers keep a scorecard on the quality of the GCA they often miss the intangible reasons for the weaker hole. Their focus is on the specific hole and not the whole course, so when they look back at their reference, all they see is a minus sign. Forgetting or never realizing the significance of the breather aspect. Their rational is "how can a course be great if it has a weak hole (or two)? " and this is just missing the boat, IMO.

« **Reply #39 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:53:46 AM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on December 14, 2006, 11:47:35 AM

Scott, Minimalist designs? If you mean designs that fit their topography versus those that demolish everything and start all over? I'd say...it dosen't matter.

Places like Shadow creek are better because Mr. Fazio was able to restrain Mr. Wynn from the over-the-top inherent nature of showmanship designs.

Even Ballyneal has it's breather holes. #9 proves that the breath concept isn't limited to relief from difficulty, but also from a visceral and/or a visual break, after the remarkable stretch of #'s 6,7, and 8. #14 is another, and it provides a brief respit before the climax. Which can be formidable depending on wind speed and direction.

The greatest aspect of a breather hole is it's ability to lull the golfer into thinking it's a breather hole. Letting the golfers guard down, so to speak, and having him/her scratch their heads when they fail to overcome the hole with an under par score. Another reason this hole might get down graded is their performance on it.

15 at Pebble WAS the perfect breather prior to it's marvelous climax. No longer though, as most of the corporate clientel have trouble finding the reduced fairway, which has been littered with ridiculous and unnecessary center bunkers.

When golfers keep a scorecard on the quality of the GCA they often miss the intangible reasons for the weaker hole. Their focus is on the specific hole and not the whole course, so when they look back at their reference, all they see is a minus sign. Forgetting or never realizing the significance of the breather aspect. Their rational is "how can a course be great if it has a weak hole (or two)? " and this is just missing the boat, IMO.

Adam, my thoughts as far as the minimalist approach would potentially lead to these "breather" holes as the architect is working with what he is presented, without the opportunity to do much shaping, dirt moving, etc.

Maybe I'm unique in this aspect, but I didn't find #9 at Ballyneal much of a "breather" hole - I enjoyed fitting the tee shot between the dune on the left and the bunker on the right, or laying up short and facing a blind shot. Also, #14? I enjoyed that one as well, trying to decide whether to go left of the centerline bunker or play short of it.

« **Reply #40 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:57:42 AM »

Ed,

I'm not sure how good a par four hole is when the smart play is a 7-iron off the tee.

Both 9th's are solid holes. Which would be the more satisfying to birdie? par?

Mike

« **Reply #41 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:57:57 AM »

Sean, After 54 holes our bill was almost a tenth of the price of membership. That's significant. Mind you I'm not complaining, just letting you know how I felt.

I'm against unaccompanied play. I've seen too many people liter or abuse golf courses when left to their own devices. With a member present, those things shouldn't ever ocurr.

« **Reply #42 on:** December 14, 2006, 11:58:55 AM »

Quote from: Adrian_Stiff on December 14, 2006, 11:35:43 AM

Tom, its an opinion. I just happen to think a lot of Pebble is only average, most courses have a few duller holes and perhaps almost any course you can argue the various positive aspects of an individual holes merits anywhere. I think the PB history carries PB along quite a bit, as for holes like 1, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.... I've played many holes better than these,

Adrian, not to pick on you, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone will list the holes that they are indifferent about, and in Adrian's case he says he's played better holes. That's fine. So have I. BUT, do we igonre the greatness of the others? It's like a vintage Ferrari. Sure it's tempramental, not as reliable as an Accord, not the most comfortable car in the world and damn expensive to care for. But oh the car as a whole! Who wouldn't take it?!? There are very, very, very few courses that don't have a few "weak" holes. Don't throw out the baby w/ the bath water is all I'm saying.

« **Reply #43 on:** December 14, 2006, 12:29:08 PM »

Mike,
#9 Cypress would be more satisfying to me personally. Any approach shot at #9 Pebble that is on the green is a birdie opportunity. You can't say that about #9 CPC.

Tom,
Agreed regarding match play. I just did it out of curiosity after Mike said Pebble was better.

« **Reply #44 on:** December 14, 2006, 12:33:59 PM »

Ed:

Understood.

But you haven't played Pebble, correct? If you have, I can't see how you'd make that statement about the greens.

This is going to sound like blasphemy... but I think you have it backwards... and Pebble's is actually MORE interesting, in the putting!

Cypress 9: two flattish halves separated by a huge tier on which no ball will stay. The tier must be respected for sure... but once you are on the proper half - which happens darn near all the time on approach to a front pin, most of the time approaching a back pin, the putts are not all that great shakes. Yes a putt from the lower level up to the top is a weird and fun one for sure... but outside of that... well... Any putt on the proper half is a birdie opportunity, and I can say that from experience.

Pebble 9: very subtle throughout (as as all the greens there), exceedingly difficult to figure out... should break toward the ocean but often doesn't, confoundingly so. No way is it true that any ball on the green in a birdie opportunity.. not even close.... even besides the subtlety, the green is pretty big....

To me the subtlety of Pebble trumps the in your face nature of Cypress - regarding these two greens.

I will grant that CPC's green is more interesting in the approach - good lord it's unique sitting on the dune, with those two halfs - but hell it should be given the hole is so short. Putting that kinda green on 9 Pebble at 450+ yards would be sadistic!

But mainly, you have the putting here all wrong. Methinks we need to get you to Pebble so you can see for yourself.

One further bottom line: I have birdied CPC #9 twice, in 5 plays. I believe I could play 9 Pebble the rest of my life and never make a 3... I'm 0 for 12 or so there. I know where I'd take the birdie... and it goes without saying where I'd take the par.... I think this is what Mike is getting at.

TH

« **Reply #45 on:** December 14, 2006, 01:09:16 PM »

Tom,
I have played Pebble, it was in '91, so I may not remember all that well. I think JES has it right from what I remember #11 and 14 are the greens that jump out as being pretty interesting. #13 was tough too because of the tilt.
2 birdies in 5 goes is damned impressive.

Well done. Where was the pin up top or down low?
The greens aren't difficult to figure out at Pebble, they are bumpy.

Although I don't remember the greens being bumpy when I played there fortunately.
My brother and I were lucky when we played Pebble. We were 2nd off the tee. Good golfers in carts in front of us zoomed off and were never seen again. 4 hackers behind us. A private golf course experience on a glorious day.

« **Reply #46 on:** December 14, 2006, 01:14:34 PM »

Ed: very cool. Then we shall chalk this up to 15 years causing memory loss.

Because 9 Pebble is one hell of a green.. as are all of them at this great course. The

As for moi and 9 CPC, one on top, one down below. And as you know I am not that good at this game.

« **Reply #47 on:** December 14, 2006, 01:21:21 PM »

Oh yes, memory loss (and hair too) could certainly explain it.

If you are not very good at this game, I can't imagine what words are used to quantify my game.

« **Reply #48 on:** December 14, 2006, 01:22:24 PM »

Quote from: ed_getka on December 14, 2006, 01:21:21 PM

Oh yes, memory loss (and hair too) could certainly explain it.

If you are not very good at this game, I can't imagine what words are used to quantify my game.

It is all relative, my friend. Remember we have guys like Sully and Jamie Slonis as regulars here, not to mention Mucci.

« **Reply #49 on:** December 14, 2006, 01:46:10 PM »

Good point.

News:

Scott Szabo

Mike Hoak

ed_getka

ed_getka

Tom Huckaby

Andy Troeger

Adrian_Stiff

Tom Huckaby

Mike Hendren

Tom Huckaby

Sean Leary

ed_getka

Tom Huckaby

Adam Clayman

Scott Szabo

Mike Hendren

Adam Clayman

David Stamm

ed_getka

Tom Huckaby

ed_getka

Tom Huckaby

ed_getka

Tom Huckaby

ed_getka