[Geoffrey Childs]

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.

Tom

I did find it a positive.  3 and 4 are truly fine holes and expose you to the coast.  They are for lack of a better term small scale holes that in no way shape of form have the massive scale of the holes that follow and that view up 6 was the first exposure to the massive scale of PB.  That in my mind was the "tease" of 3 and 4 vs. what was to come. Maybe its a figment of my imagination but that was my experience.

[Tom Zeni]

One pic of the new 5th hole everyone has forgotten. And that's the plaque that explains the regret of Samuel B. Morse's vision for that hole. His vision was finally fullfilled. Nuff said.

[Adam Clayman]

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.They only don't matter here, Tom. On a website devoted to GCA. Those who want the etherial should look in the Shivas Irons group.

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.Tom, as i'm sure I told you before the old hole yielded no screams of aces like the new one has. The ocean, as you call it, is really a tiny corner of Stillwater cove. The operative word is Still. The hole if played prudently is to the short left. Removing the rightside completely. As a result many pull it too far left and are pretty screwed from there.

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. Difficulty is not my only justification for thinking the hole was much better. Stopping for a drink out of the old cooler, turning that corner and having the south coastline revealed was for me one of the most dramatic moments in all of golf. Espcially on one's first time around. Plus, For crying out loud Paul Cowley worked that hole in his genesis as a someday to be GCA.
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....I know it's crazy, but sometimes dictation isn't a bad thing. It inspired me to have to learn to hit that shot.

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.

 

Most agreed to gladly disagree.

[ChipRoyce]

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.

Huck;
I certainly understood the reference - thought it was amusing (going back to our last discussion about Pebble and "inspiration". Thought it was pretty hilarious.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the pic of the plaque posted by Mr. Zeni certainly adds to the arguement for the new 5th.  

[Tom Zeni]

Thanks Kalen,

Due to the passion of the topic,  I thought the vision of Morse was going to be ignored.  

If indeed Morse hadn't sold the land, I'm sure for all the years that Pebble has been played this hole would have been hailed by all as an ingenious Par 3. Maybe not as much as #7, but hailed none the less.

[JESII]

Well then, we might as well speculate on where the sixth tee might have been built...let's assume the green is in the same spot.



p.s. Sorry Huck, I was a bit bored...and it was just too easy.

[Bob_Huntley]

Please, someone bring up the debate on this that was mulled over ad infinitum some two or three years ago.

I am with Adam Clayman on this, the old Number 5 was a much more difficult hole and one which could ruin a score. The new hole is attractive and somewhat of a let up compared with the course of old.

Someone earlier spoke of poor conditioning on the old, but this was rectified later on by forced hot air beneath the green to bring it up to snuff.

I think that I may have played Pebble more times than most people on this board and no matter what Uncle Tom Huckaby says... the new fifth is not the hole of the old.

Here endeth the first lesson.

Bob

[Tom Huckaby]

Someone once speculated that hell would freeze over before I ever disagree with Mr. Huntley.  And he has given me many lessons, nearly all of which I have gratefully accepted.  But one thing I learned living with two teachers the first half of my life, and getting through 16 years of Catholic education, is that most teachers are wonderful, but none are infallible.

So get out the thermal underwear and foul weather jackets down there, Satan.

I fully understand that Bob has played the course way more times than I have both with the old and new holes.  His experience playing them exceeds mine by far, as well as that of all other participants here.

But experience also doesn't necessarily equal infallibility.  I just plain and simple do disagree with his assessment of #5.

The old hole was more difficult, for sure.  It was just ugly and charmless and completely one-dimensional.  If ugly brutes that dictate one's shot are one's cup of tea, then by all means, the old number five was your dream hole.  

But if shot choices with glorious views do inspire you, I can't see how one could not prefer the new hole.

So yes, the new hole is indeed not the hole of old.  Bob is certainly right about that.  I'm just GLAD it isn't.  

But to each his own!

To Adam - if you wanted to learn to hit a hook so bad, I could have taught you in five minutes on the range...   Or even better, you could have focused on the tee shot on #3.  As for the rest, I guess we can leave it be as we're making no headway.  I find you as wrong about it all as you find me.

I blame Dan Kelly for all of this. However, it is good to know that neither of us have budged an inch in the few years since we first dhad this discussion.  Conviction is a good thing.

 

TH

ps - Interesting, Adam, that you give me grief for focus on the "epherial" (whatever that means), while a key point of your argument seems to be a water fountain and the fact a friend of yours worked on the golf hole.
 

[Sean_A]

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.They only don't matter here, Tom. On a website devoted to GCA. Those who want the epherial should look in the Shivas Irons group.

Adam

I sometimes fail to understand your ideas of good GCA and this is another case of my failure to understand you.  Regardless of the merits of the new #5 or old #5, a statement like the one above is mindboggling.  Beauty is a component of good architecture.  I would be very surprised if any archie said beauty doesn't merit consideration in design.    

Ciao

[Adam Clayman]

Sean, Tom..It was Etherial misspelled.

And Sean, all that meant was that if people want to evaluate a golf hole based on only periphrial factors, they should discuss them on the Shivas society discussion group, if there is susch a thing.

It's ridiculous that the case wasn't closed after Uncle Boab lowered the gavel.

Calling him fallible is fallible.

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

Uncle Bob is a great man... as are you (in everything except spelling).  

Neither of you are infallible. Hell Bob favors Chelsea football, which proves his fallibility.

I disagree with your opinions about these golf holes; and it's far from ridiculous for such an opinion to be expressed.

Now on the the larger point:  first, let me clarify for the umpteenth time that I never said one should evaluate a golf hole ONLY on "peripheral" factors.  Please don't all into this Muccian trap of putting words and ideas on to another that he has never expressed.  My contention remains just that they are part of the equation, and to deny they matter AT ALL is silly.

But perhaps this will help:  there's a man whose ideas on golf course architecture I believe you respect.  Name of Doak.  He has said several times on here that one of the purposes of golf course architecture is to maximize beautiful views when they are available.  He even gave specific instances where he's done this, at Pacific Dunes and other places.

Now you may disagree with him, and I surely wouldn't call you ridiculous... I'd just say I disagree.

See, that's the point, Adam:  you call these factors "peripheral."  And they certainly are.  But they do matter, and they matter here, there, and everywhere.

BTW, once again, you tend to discuss them yourself... remember that drinking fountain and greatness bursting into view?  So I'm not sure what you're complaining about... Are you lobbying for a new discussion group to be created?  Trying to gain members?  Hell make it happen man, I'm there with you.

 

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, For 79 years Pebble Beach became almost god-like in it's lore and appeal to golfers. It did so without the new hole.

The plaque that "the boys" put up in June of 2000 was in recognition of the Japanese Co. that owned the course and their stewardship of the course. I highly doubt Mr. Morse's greatest regret was not being able to buy back that parcel. And if he had, to assume that Jack Nicklaus's hole is the same as it would've been, is quite the stretch. The sea wall improvements on the 18th and the ninth are much more important to the golf course than the addition of this weak hole.

Yes the old hole broke all the rules. But as we have learned here on GCA breaking those rules is not unacceptable on occasion, and, it can lead to extraordinary results.

That was the old 5th. Odd and peculiar. Besides the 11th hole, no other holes went in that direction.

As I told you when this question first came up, I didn't arrive at my opinion straightaway. I gave it careful thought after being away for many years, and in my memory, the old hole was Pebble Beach. The new hole is a result of the infection of multi-multi millionaires thinking their money and thier homes are whats important. It isn't, and I have no ass to kiss in this fight.

[Eric Franzen]

BTW, what happened with the site of the old fifth?

[Sean_A]

Sean, Tom..It was Etherial misspelled.

And Sean, all that meant was that if people want to evaluate a golf hole based on only periphrial factors, they should discuss them on the Shivas society discussion group, if there is susch a thing.

It's ridiculous that the case wasn't closed after Uncle Boab lowered the gavel.

Calling him fallible is fallible.

Adam

After checking the dictionary, I realized what you meant!  However, you must have pulled the comment "evaluate a golf hole based only on periphrial factors" from the Mucci playbook.  I don't recall anybody making that claim.  

Seeing as how the rugby is of a poor standard today, it would make my day if you fessed up and admitted that beauty has a place in golf design.  When you do admit this obvious truth, convince Mucci to see the error of his ways as well.

Ciao

[Rick Shefchik]

Eric --

That's how this debate got (re)started. Friday afternoon the announcers at PGA streaming coverage of the 7th hole were commenting on Charles Schwab as he played the hole, and the camera panned back across Stillwater Cove to Schwab's new house -- built on the site of the old 5th. That's when Bill Kratzert said that the new No. 5 at Pebble Beach gets a "hundred percent thumbs up," as Dan quoted in the first post on this thread.

And here we are.

[Eric Franzen]

Many thanks for the information, Rick!

[Adam Clayman]

Sean, I find beauty in many things and most places.  Great GCA is fortunate to marry the site's specific beauty, as it does at many points at PB. But it also does more than elevate one's spirit the way one who just walks around the Carmel Bay feels. Great GCA takes us on a journey. The old journey was better. It's the only opinion to have because it can't be proven wrong! Ignoring Dr. Childs, and others, observations about the unveiling of the beauty is proof I appreciate it's place in GCA.

The Mucci point has always been (as I understood it) When one is discussing the nuts and bolts of the GCA, beauty is just one of the factors. A factor that the new hole proponents seemed to rest their hat on. Hucks addition of the multi option approach, on the new fifth, is a nice try, but with the current maintenance regime in place, the run up is hardly doable. Plus the tree is in the way. Looking at the old photos of the rest of the course, and considering the old 5th, running up was limited on approach. The entire courses motiff is for the most part, aerial assault golf at it's finest. Sure there are plenty of opportunities to get around on the ground, but fewer examples on approach.

[Bob_Huntley]

Eric --

That's how this debate got (re)started. Friday afternoon the announcers at PGA streaming coverage of the 7th hole were commenting on Charles Schwab as he played the hole, and the camera panned back across Stillwater Cove to Schwab's new house -- built on the site of the old 5th. That's when Bill Kratzert said that the new No. 5 at Pebble Beach gets a "hundred percent thumbs up," as Dan quoted in the first post on this thread.

And here we are.

Rick,

Chuck Schwab's house and the adjoining mansion of Don Lucas is not on the old fifth hole's platform. It is well to the right and would have been behind the fence going up the hill to the green.

I wish some statistican could drum up the scores of past tournaments and post the degree of difficulty of the old vs the new.

Bob

[Rick Shefchik]

Thanks, Bob. I wish I could recall if it was my mistake or the PGA announcers, but all I can say is I thought they said it was Schwab's house on the site of the old 5th. Probably they didn't -- these guys are prepped a lot better than I am.

So back to Eric's question -- what is there?

[Sean_A]

Sean, I find beauty in many things and most places.  Great GCA is fortunate to marry the site's specific beauty, as it does at many points at PB. But it also does more than elevate one's spirit the way one who just walks around the Carmel Bay feels. Great GCA takes us on a journey. The old journey was better. It's the only opinion to have because it can't be proven wrong! Ignoring Dr. Childs, and others, observations about the unveiling of the beauty is proof I appreciate it's place in GCA.

The Mucci point has always been (as I understood it) When one is discussing the nuts and bolts of the GCA, beauty is just one of the factors. A factor that the new hole proponents seemed to rest their hat on. Hucks addition of the multi option approach, on the new fifth, is a nice try, but with the current maintenance regime in place, the run up is hardly doable. Plus the tree is in the way. Looking at the old photos of the rest of the course, and considering the old 5th, running up was limited on approach. The entire courses motiff is for the most part, aerial assault golf at it's finest. Sure there are plenty of opportunities to get around on the ground, but fewer examples on approach.

Adam

I won't even try to debate the positives and negatives concerning PB's 5th or 6th.  I have never seen the course and I ain't gonna pay the going rate to find out.  I was referring to the principle of building beauty into a course or taking advantage of beautiful vistas.  Your most recent post above seems to be a very different take on the matter and we seem to be on the same page afterall.  

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

But Tom,

Now you have to walk all the way back to the 6th tee up on the hill...

JES II,

You have to understand that Tom Huckaby's focus is on the views, thus the disconnect in the routing isn't noticed by him until his back is toward the ocean when he walks to the 6th tee.

The old 5th was no slouch as a hole.
Shots missed left were in deep trouble.
It was more than an adequate test, and allowed the golf course to flow smoothly.

You're right, the flow of the golf course has been compromised for visuals.

But Sully:  with the old hole you turned away from the ocean to play one silly inland hole, then turned back to it, creating an even worse disruption of flow.

That's just not true.
The continuity was obvious.
It wasn't a silly hole, it was a good hole, and there was NO DISRUPTION in flow like there is today.

Do we REALLY need to go over it again?

Only if you want to focus on the views instead of the routing, which is now flawed or at the very least, compromised.

[Tom Huckaby]

What comes after "umpteeth"?

Patrick, let's get this straight once and for all, shall we?  My FOCUS is not on any particular views - I just do notice them.  

And Adam - you have this exactly backwards.  It was ME - TOM HUCKABY - ME MYSELF AND I - who have always maintained that:

"When one is discussing the nuts and bolts of the GCA, beauty is just one of the factors."

It was ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY, DEFINITELY, NOT PATRICK MUCCI.

Mucci has maintained for years on here that BEAUTY DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL.  ZERO, NIL, NADA.

Perhaps the caps will make his finally sink in to one and all?

The man is clueless and soul-less on this point.  You have no choice now but to agree with me as you cite time after time instances of beauty mattering (like the delayed gratification you feel on the 6th tee); and disagree with Mucci (who unless he completely changes his position now, must necessarily say that doesn't matter a bit).

And that's all I've ever argued on that general point.  Not that beauty matters most, not that one ought to focus on it, not any degree to which it should matter; but just that it MATTERS AT ALL.  That is DOES factor into the equation.   Mucci tries time and time again to put words in my mouth; I correct him time and time again.  

Because I 100%, COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY, agree with the following:

Great GCA is fortunate to marry the site's specific beauty, as it does at many points at PB. But it also does more than elevate one's spirit the way one who just walks around the Carmel Bay feels. Great GCA takes us on a journey.

Where you and I differ is that you found the old journey to be superior - I find the new journey, which was the architect's intent, to be superior.  To me it's a simple difference of opinion at that point.

But Mucci would say, and has said many times in so many words, this:


Great GCA in no way cares about marrying the site's specific beauty.


And he would leave it at that.  No part of beauty matters.

THAT'S my long-time difference of opinion with him.  Understand now?

As for 5 old and new, it remains a difference of opinion between you and me.  You liked the old journey, I felt the turn inland to be jarring.  I understand the take of you and Geoffrey about teasing and then revealing, I just never felt it personally.  For me it was tough to tease me about something staring me in the face for two holes (background of the approach into 3, entire right side of 4) and sitting right there plain as day as I walked off 4 green.  But, to each his own for sure.  And I too did not come to my conclusions lightly; as I fully understand you did not.  Neither is right, neither is wrong, and this proves nothing regarding any general assessment of either of our knowledge on this subject.

But I guess it comes down more to this:  you liked the old golf hole as a golf hole, I truly always thought it was the worst on the course, one I wanted to get over with quickly so I could get back to the fun mentally challenging shots, rather than this one-dimensional test of abilty to work the ball right to left at a very specific distance.

To me, the new 5 is more fun to play, it offers more shot options (because there was only one way to play the old 5, and even if the new 5 is wet, well one still can work the ball either way with no blocking, one can come in high or low - all things one couldn't do at all on the old 5); and yes, it is way more beautiful (and again, that's only one part of it, and a small one, and certainly NOT one I am hanging my hat on).

That's my take.  I know you disagree.  I respect that.

I just disagree as well.

Which to me is fair enough.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

I did not in any way focus on the views; I simply noticed them.  But the bottom line is to me that the routing as intended by the architect is the better one - I always did feel jarred suddenly turning inward on this journey along the shore; now I don't.

If anything influenced me before though, it wasn't the views or sudden lack of them - it was the fact I was forced to suddenly play a golf hole that sucked and was jarringly out of place on an otherwise great course.

I applaud the powers that be at Pebble for restoring the architect's intent and giving us a fun golf hole to play.

To each his own, most definitely.

What are the chances of this being the last word?

 

[JWL]

Tom H

In reading the arguments agains the new hole, I just have to wonder if Morse would have been able to build the hole along the coast as he originally wished, and the present owners of PB would have come along and sold that land for homesites and constructed a new hole inland. (like the one that was there previously)
Somehow I don't think the same arguments would be forthcoming.   What do you think?
BTW, the new green is exactly the same size as the previous green.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()