Kyle - that got audible yuks.  

GC - that was kind of a neat walk or ride from the old 5th to 6 green, but no way was it in the league of 15-16 Cypress... the ugly fence and the fact there was no way to avoid the horrid asphalt path say enough to make that so.

Kalen - makes sense to me, and I sure don't recall any bailout area on the old 5.  But Adam's gone and he did indeed have several supporters, who will be in to rebut soon enough I'm sure.

TH

Hey Tom,

Seeing those posted pics on #6 really put the visual in my mind about your suggestion of putting a tee box to the right of the 5th green and make that a short par 4.  That would be an epic carry over the ocean and on top of the far cliff to a blind fairway  

And to boot, it will quiet all those who don't like that walk up to the 6th tee box.  

Well, at least I can enjoy the view then while waiting for the guys in my foursome who wants go for the green on the proposed shortish 6th.

Perphaps a "Mike Keiser" type of tee box can be constructed for use in special tournies like he had built at Bandon Resort.  Who wouldn't love to see them use that bottom tee at the AT&T and watch all the celebs and such sweat it out on that tee shot?  And when you miss, that would be as about as dramatic as misses are, watching your ball plummet to the serf like a dead seagull.

WOW!!!!

I don't think that any other course causes as much polarization of opinion than Pebble on this board.

The overanalysis of #5 is amazing - not to mention the shot to Pat Mucci.

I wish everyone would just admit - Pebble is a ______ course (insert your own adjective in the blank) on one of the most scenic pieces of real estate in the world.

Isn't flow more of an noticeable issue on a membership course where you play frequently, compared to a resort course like Pebble?

I'd say so.  Yet another reason why this is a non-issue
at Pebble and we really ought to judge it far more
on the worth of each golf hole.  Remember it's those
who decry the new hole who make the loudest "flow
interruption" claims.

Just having fun on a slow afternoon, Eric.

I think it's a good point, btw....

Adam:

Fair enough.  We both know our positions on this; of
course I've said nothing new for you here.    One thing is kinda new though, and that's this:


And if I may be so bold, Dr. Childs argument about the old walk had little to do with the trees and mostly to do with the unveiling of the magnificiant sixth hole.


Of course that's the best part of that walk; and it was kinda cool.  I just find it trumped by the negatives I listed.  Do you really put that walk in a league with 15-16 CPC?  To me even if we deny the negatives I listed, the payoff at the end isn't in the same league... This is a curious take to me, all other crap aside.

But back to said crap...  

As for SFGC, I'd say the fact I denied any flow interruption
there rather proves I DO have an appreciation for such things.
But of course I know you disagree.

In any case, must one be lock-step with you to have appreciation?

I sure hope you don't take things that way...

Because I sincerely do value flow as a concept.  I just don't find it to be the be all and end all of golf.  


Chip:  the picture I posted was just for fun and Adam's sort of right, it has to do with Mucci's continued illogical and ill-conceived denial that the totality of what matters in an assessment of a golf course is what lies on the course itself.  My picture rather poignantly signifies how he must necessarily see that golf hole.  Feel free to pray for him, as I do.

Well said Kalen and excellent good humor, as always.

 

Adam's take about the houses is curious to me as well... the two mansions are very visible there now, and yeah, that can be taken as a negative if one doesn't like to look at those.  But what was there before was pretty god-awful also with huge fences... I can't see any reasonable take that viewing these houses proves the old hole was better.  The old hole was forested yes; but the view to the right side was the god-awful fence.  Now you have mansion on left, gorgeous ocean on right.  Ok, some might be SO put off by the mansions that they prefer the old look... but it's far from inarguable or any sort of proof... I can say very honestly I like the look a LOT better now.

GC:

I'm pleased to read you see the logic that most don't play the game as Stevie Wonder would.

But I remain curious about your take on the overall re 5 PB.  Did you really find the detour away from the ocean to be a positive overall?

Because I get the tease and then unveiling thing, and yes that is certainly not how it is now.  BUT.. I also don't see that anyone but the most cluelss would have been "teased" as it was before.  Hell, as one stood on the back of 4 green, the whole coast unveiled itself right there and then... it's not like you didn't see it at all or just saw a tiny bit, then went away and then BOOM for the first time it hit you on 6 tee.... If that was the case, I'd give some credit to this viewpoint and it might sway the overall assessment because that would be cool.

I just never felt that at all.  I stood on 4 green and looked and the ocean and wondered why we had to leave.  I will admit that I never saw anything great about the old 5 hole just as a golf hole either, so that might cloud my take (as tI think it clouds the take of those who trumpet the quirkiness or whatever of the old 5 hole)...

I just can't agree with the tease and reveal nature of how it was before.  For me it was give and take away.  I don't find much value to that.

TH

I don't dispute that the homes that are ever present on the course are unsightly, but you can't just single out the 5th and dismiss it because of that.  You would have to be dismissing alot of other holes as well.No I don't! The other holes are no where near as obtrusive(save for the bus station one, on 18), or as close.

As to the cart references, if you didn't see the obvious sarcasm, humor, playful banter in that one, then you are in dire need to knock back a few and locate some female companionship!!   Theres a good bit of playful banter going back and forth on this thread. At least on my end.

However, on a website that discusses the merits of the GCA the only arguments put forth by you like minded knumbsckulls is all periphrially related, not the merits of the holes themselves.

My criterion is based on challenge and character. The new hole fails in the challenge, unless you are on tour, due to the length differential. While the old hole was a bitch from even the forward tees. It's character was unique and is sadly missed. Like the hole all you want. All but Mr. Spangler have their heads so far up their own arses as it relates to the GCA changes, you'd think they are from Augusta Ga.

That is a famous photo, one of which I and my wife are'
duly proud.    And good point re it being tough to argue about another hole on the coast.

But let's leave return to the old 5 for a moment.  I played it I think 10 times.. can't recall the exact number.  I truly sincerely recall no "tease and then reveal" aspect to 3-4-5-6.  I really do recall playing 3 and 4, seeing the ocean in all its glory standing behind 4 green, then trying to play 5 as quickly as we could so we could get back to it.  Yes the view coming out of the trees onto 6 tee was very cool... But I really did find the whole thing an annoyance more than anything positive.

Did you REALLY find this to be a positive?

If so, that's fine, to each his own... but it's a take I have a hard time understanding.  I don't discount it nor devalue it; I just don't get it.

But these are pretty subjective things, so yes, to each his own.

Mark:

It was described as such.  And I'm a big fan of quirky golf holes; but I didn't much like this one.

Adam:

I am very ready to debate the merits of the two holes; I just figured we've also covered that way too many times already and the issue at hand was what you call "peripheral."  Please tell me you don't see the holes as Patrick Mucci though... and please also don't all into the all too easy trap he does:  claiming all I care about are these peripherals.  That is far from the case.  In the end, the playing of the golf holes is what matters most.  I just do continue to maintain that to say these "peripherals" don't matter AT ALL is illogical, folly, silly.

So as for the two holes...

In terms of challenge, well... are you really trying to say the new one is too easy?  Kinda hard to decipher your riddles sometimes.... If so, I will say this:  even from the 140 tees I sure as hell didn't find it easy.  The ocean right most definitely comes into play... the green remains pretty tough... this is not an easy golf hole.

But I will say the old one was harder.  That just doesn't equate to better in my world, and I didn't think it did in yours.
The old one could be played ONLY with a right to left shot which carried the exact perfect distance.  Once you pulled that off, the green was VERY severely contoured, leaving a lot to pure serendipity if the speeds were up. It was a tough golf hole without a doubt.  I just found it to be pretty one-dimensional, and that's not really my cup of tea.  Given where you've chosen to make your golf home, it surprises the heck out of me you prefer this....

Because the new hole can be played many different ways, including with a run-up; an option not available at the old hole.

Hey, call the old one quirky, play up that, play up the sentiment that you just liked it because it was different or whatever.  Go ahead and air your beefs against the management also; just don't expect the world to agree with you as it pertains to these specific golf holes.

Nope.  As much as I"ll just take your word for it that PB management might be doing bad things these days (I really don't know one way or the other); I just can't agree with you re #5.

But we knew that already.