[Ran Morrissett]

Let's do a poll: who thinks the architectural merit of the course is equal to its incomparable setting?

I am personally thinking more of the 1929 course than as of today (i.e. 12 and 17 played properly) but regardless of the year, I will cast the first vote and I say YES.

In fact, though several parties must receive credit for Pebble over a period of time, I would rate the 1929 version as every bit the architectural gem as Cypress Point.

I know others don't agree and I don't get it - maybe it has to do with some of the extraneous factors that come in playing the course?

Pebble Beach is one of 12 courses in the world that I can think of where everything architecturally was seemingly done right (Pine Valley, Merion, Riviera, NGLA, Sand Hills, Yale, Shinnecock, RM West, Jasper Park, Cypress and Winged Foot are the only other ones that come to mind).

Cheers,

[ed_getka]

The first time I saw Pebble was during the '92 Open. After walking the first 4 holes I remember thinking to myself I'll pay whatever it takes to play this course one time in my life. When I finally played the course it didn't disappoint and parring #8 is one of the highlights of my 25 years of golf. Looking at the 8th green with a 4 iron in my hand and the target looking like the hood of a VW bug perched on the side of a cliff was an incredible thrill.

[Will E]

I cast a NO vote.
Not having had the Bandon Experience yet (but getting a bit of a contact high from this site), it appears to me that given the Pebble setting today we could find a handful of archies that could produce a better product that the one we have now.
Ran-
what qualities of 1929 Pebble give it equal compare to CPC?
what do you find lacking in today's design?
why isn't Crystal Downs included in your 12 picks?

I really enjoy Pebble Beach, I just think that it could have been better.

[Tim_Weiman]

Ran:

Based on the premise of your question ("incomparable setting"), I vote NO.

[Lou_Duran]

I have played PB only once back in 1983 after playing Sahalee twice and Spyglass.  The day after PB I played a badly conditioned Pasatiempo.  Not only was PB a let down architecturaly, but the greens were bumpy and spongy, and the pro shop/marshalls were extremely unaccomodating.  We were the second group off, a threesome playing behind a twosome which we never saw again after the first hole (nor did we see anyone behind us).  All the tees were moved up to the middle or front of the second tee boxes making the course play maybe 6,200 yards.  After the tee shot on the first hole, I went to the back of the tournament tees and played from there through the tee shot on number 8 where a marshall came out and told me that if I was seen playing outside of the tee markers again, I would be removed from the course.  The fact that I had a low handicap and that there wasn't a player for two holes behind us didn't make a difference.  I have never been treated so poorly on a golf course in my life, and I swore that they would never get my money again.

Whether this experience clouded my appreciation for the course, I am not sure.  I thought that holes 1 and 2 were very average; 3 and 4 were decent short par fours; 5 was an interesting,tight par three; 6 was way too wet at the bottom and also at the landing area of the second shot so it took some of the game out of it; 7 was short and pretty, but without a lot of wind it was not much of the hole; 8 was great with a very difficult second shot; 9 and 10 looked fantastic but from the front tees where I was forced to play they played driver-W, driver-SW; 11-15 were average at best; liked the angles and approach to 16; 17 from the front tees is a much lesser hole, as is 18.  Of the four courses that I played on that trip I would rank them Spyglass, Sahalee, Pasatiempo, PB.  I thought that PB had an even mix of great, good, and very average holes.  Take out the Pacific and the history, and IMHO, it may not be a top 100 course.  I may feel different if I had played the course from the back tees with decent greens and under firm conditions, but the number of so-so holes would keep it from the Top Ten in my book.    

[BillV]

Here's a surprize, no.  The setting of Cypress did not allow for terribly indifferent holes as did pebble.

And Ran

What was done wrong at Lehigh?  

[John bernhardt]

Ran, it is interesting to me you would include Jasper Park which I loved and felt had a wonderful routing that made the round flow like beautifl music. yes I think everything about pebble but the current ownershp and management is earned and deserved.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

Yes,

Take away the cart paths, hotel properties and Pebble is a great course with great routing.

Shooter, Tim, Lou, et. al.,

Go ahead, take that piece of property, and design a better golf course, not using any hole currently in existance.  Work from a blank and unbiased slate and try to match what exist today.  Have fun, and get back to us in the next ten years  

Has anyone played this course from the back, back tees ?

How would you rate the greensites for holes #
2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,14,16,17,18 ?

Ran, I appologize for some individuals who are obviously under the influence of a controled substance.

[T_MacWood]

A definite yes. The utilization of the rocky promintory alone should be enough, the ability to extract 3 world class holes--6,7 and 8--out of that relatively small peninsula was inspired. There is not an inch of wasted coast-line. Not to mention the use of barancas on numerous other holes--second, third, old 5th, 15 and 16. The biggest short coming is the 12th and not using the ravine behind the green.

[Tim_Weiman]

Patrick:

The decisions made to lay out #4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 18 make perfect sense to me, so I would hardly propose changing them.  Of this group, I like all but #6 and 18.  We've beat those issues to death, so I won't repeat myself.

In the extremely unlikely event that anyone was commissioned to significantly change Pebble and improve its "architecture" I would recommend focusing on other parts of the course, certainly not the parts where there is universal agreement.

Ran asked us to assume that the setting was "incomparable".  I'll grant that Pebble's setting is one of the best.  But, wouldn't call the OVERALL ARCHITECTURAL EFFORT effort "incomparable".

In sum, the way Ran put his question, the only possible answer is NO, unless you really believe the architectural effort at PB is the world's very best.  I simply don't.

Lou Duran may take the argument too far suggesting that under certain conditions Pebble would not merit a top 100 rating. But, the sentiments he expressed are fairly common, at least in my experience.

I hesitate to make this analogy because it is quite imperfect, but Pebble Beach has an Old Head quality to it.  It strikes many people as awesome at first.  But, then, many people settle down and talk about the parts they loved and the parts they thought were kind of average.

P.S. Let me be clear for the record, I would not recommend tearing up Pebble and the course has far more architecture of value than you'll find in Kinsale.

[Lou_Duran]

Patrick:

Perhaps you could use some of my "special" medication to overcome your fixation with distance information on the golf course (how do you do the smiley face?).

I would never presume that I have the ability to design anything better than what's there.  The question, I believe, dealt with the architectural merit of the course relative to the "incomparable setting".  In my opinion, it is not deserving of its notoriety, but I couched my response with the caveat of my very limited and probably unusual experience there.  Perhaps I will have the opportunity to play it again from the back tees under firm conditions with someone as capable and knowledgeable as yourself.  Maybe then my opinion would change.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim and Lou,

What do you think of the green sites I listed?

[Peter Galea]

Walked several holes today at the "Beach".
Outstanding and beyond compare.
I agree with Patrick, the hotel, paths, etc. are a distraction. However; I can see past this and I feel the architecture overshadows it. Someone explain the weak holes to me.

[Tim_Weiman]

Patrick:

We've touched on most of PB's holes on this and a couple other threads, so I'm probably running out of energy on this topic.

There are several excellent green sites among the holes you've listed. Of those, the one I may not have commented on is #16. Yes, I do like that green site.

As we are not likely to settle this debate, I am curious about your experience with Pebble.  I'd say  the majority of people I've played the course with have commented on what they perceived to be the course's weaknesses.

Maybe the great stuff is just so stunning that they expect more from the rest of the course.  Maybe they resent the green fees.  Maybe they sort of rebel against the ultra high rating.

I don't know.  But, I can honestly say that I hear more negatives than people raving about the place, especially from people who've gone back for a second or third round.

I always thought Pebble Beach may not be the best course in the world, but it is the best "once in a lifetime course" (a comment I would not make about Pine Valley).

Has your experience (listening to other people's views on the course) really been that different?

[herrstein]

I have had this conversation several times before..
I vote no.
1- very average.
2- a good par 4, weak as a par 5. The road is huge distraction. the tee shot uninspiring.
3- fair at best
4- a great par 4
5- weaker now, just a generaic par 3 from the Nicklaus school. The old #5 was not great, just a quirky hole.
6- a cool hole on any site, but really odd ground.
7- anywhere else, not even a hole. Where it is, unbelievable
8. one of the worst tee shots in golf followed by the greatest approach to a par 4 anywhere.
9. a poor tee shot, a good green complex.
10- same shots as 9, a poor tee shot, the second good but not great.
11- another poor tee shot follwed by a good approach. great green complex.
12- a good par 3 anywhere, but only good.
13- a great fairway bunker and hole well suited to the land. Good anywhere.
14- a fair tee shot, a great second and third. one of the coolest par 5's anywhere, which doesn't rely on the ocean.
15. weak, especially the tee shot.
16- pretty cool in all respects- good green complex.
17- one of the great par 3's.
18- the classic par 5 finish, which has now become almost a cliche, which doesn't diminish its greatness.
Overall, the course if plopped down in Knasas would only be good, not great. Certainly not considered one of the top ten in the world.
Cypress is a far superior mix of holes, which builds to a great crescendo at 17. Then you have to play one more hole to get in.
Overall, I like Cypress much more.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

When I occassionally hear a negative comment about Pebble Beach, I probe the issue, what's the negative ?

Some say the first couple of holes are weak.

One could say the same of the first two (2) holes at NGLA.

But, how are the holes weak ?
Weak compared to what, compared to
holes # 7,8,9,10,17,and 18 ?  
Almost every first few starting holes in America could be classified as weak in comparison to that stretch.

From the BACK tees, I think the first four or five holes are good.  I'm one of the few people that liked the old 5th hole.  Certainly the 4th hole is a terrific short par 4.  From the BACK tees # 2 and 3 are good holes, especially with a little breeze.
And, # 1 would probably be a higher thought of starting hole if the buildings weren't there.  I also like # 6.

I think people object to LOOOOOONG rounds,
Cart paths, buildings, the price of everything, and the probability that the course KO'D them.  I've always tried to be first out, and last out when playing 18 or
36.

I think it's a great course, blending all the elements you could ask for, a seaside golf course, incredible vistas, the wind, the fog, the variety, the caddies, the architecture, the sense of familiarity, the challenge, and the history.

Ask me if I'd turn down a round at Pebble Beach.  I love the place.

[Bob_Huntley]

Having played Pebble Beach probably more often than most, both under tournament conditions and friendly games, and from the back tees, I think it is a wonderful test of golf.

I agree with some of the comments regarding rude marshalls and money grubbing propensities, but that should not detract from the course itself.

I am reminded of Ian Woosnam's comments re the seventh being but an extra hole, it got up and bit him in the Open.

Does Pebble have a less than stellar hole? Yes. Does it have a worse hole than the 18th at Cypress? No.

[Lou_Duran]

Patrick:

It has been 18 years since I played PB, and my memory is shrinking at the same rate as my false back turn in increasing (I nearly hit myself on the back of the neck this afternoon!).  I like the angle on my second shot to 3; the green complex on 4, specially the right side was interesting; 6 was good for its relative simplicity and high position; 7 green complex is great, the hole might be better another 20 to 30 yds. back on calm days; 8 green site is fantastic, as are 9 and 10.  12 & 14 sites are difficult for the shots required; 16 is one of my favorites; 17 green is dramatic but a little ackward (from the back tee across the road into the wind it is unplayable for most); 18 green is great because of the way the ocean pinches in, and the tree on the right protects the safe route somewhat.  A lot of outstanding green sites, but is this what makes a course no. 1 or 2 in the nation?  I think not.      

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I take it you only "occasionally" hear negative comments about Pebble.  That's okay, just different than my experience.

Like you, whenever I hear people comment on a course, I do enjoy hearing their reasoning.  With regard to PB, in sum people seem to say "great stretch along the water.....too many indifferent holes for a course rated so high".

As for your point about the back tees, honestly, from what I've seen they are only relevant for a pretty small percentage of golfers. So small, that I don't place much emphasis on them.

You've played 36 holes at Pebble?  Wow!  When was that?  I know some pretty prominent members at Pine Valley who complain they can't even do that at PV.

[BillV]

Patrick

Please don't be insulting.  The first 2 at PB can never be mentioned in the same breath as the first 2 at NGLA.

herrstein

You get it just about right although 18 is a cliche and has to use a tree at a purported 'links' course for strategy, not once, but twice! Also #11 is really a pretty good hole and 12 not so good, in fact most would criticize it first.  The new Nicklaus hole I haven't seen in person and god forbid I judge it from pictures, but it can't possibly fit into the rest of the course based upon that wholly inadequate method of evaluation.

defending my no....

Pebble is about a 10 visually(setting) even with those new monstrosity homes, and 8.5 architecturally.  ergo, incongruity, the point of this thread.  duh

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill V,

I guess when you were taking courses in comparative anantomy, biology, etc., etc., you missed the courses on reading comprehension.

Compared to the rest of the golf course, Holes # 1 and # 2 at NGLA are looked on by some as weak, the same can be said of holes
# 1 and # 2 at Pebble Beach.

Doug Stein,

Almost any great course plopped down in the middle of Kansas would suffer.  NGLA, Seminole, Pine Valley, Shinnecock amongst them.  How would Lookout Mountain and your new course fare on flat land in the middle of ______ ?

Everyone has to deal with the reality that Pebble Beach isn't in Kansas, it's on the coast in California, and given the land the archtiect/s did a great job.

What many seem to forget, is that only so many holes can be on the ocean, there is only so much ocean front footage.

But, that's just my opinion.

[BillV]

Perhaps my writing skills are at fault.  My reading comprehensiion is over 99%ile.  My comparison is that the first two at PBGnotL are weak, where the first two at NGLA appear weak to the unaware, such as those that only look at pictures or who are golf architecture ninconpoops.

1 and 2 PB are pathetic and unworthy  compared to 1 and 2 NGLA.

: followed immediately by ) for the emoticon-impaired.

[Matt_Ward]

My vote is YES!

I'm sorry to hear that people who have played PB have suffered with poor course management, shaggy greens from past poor practices, and tee placements that were ill conceived.

I've played PB at least 10 times (all from the extreme tips) and I know firsthand the elements of greatness that lies there. You must have a complete game -- there course will not yield low numbers from just one aspect of your game working.

When people say what if PB was in Kansas(?), that's really a stretch. You have to accept the course where IT IS located. I agree with Pat when he says people say they could design a better course -- I think that's wonderful post 19th hole chatter but truly doubtful in actual practice.

PB has some of the toughest greens to hit with iron play. Add the wind and you can get a real headache when trying to "up and down" for pars.

Yes, there are holes that allow the player to go low, but you had better do it given the challenges of the others.

The bashing of PB is usually related to off-course issues that Lou described or just plai envy given the high degree of exposure the course receives. If there is any course that, in my mind, is overhyped it's ANGC.

Regards,

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

"Bashing" Pebble Beach?

I've never heard that. What I have frequently heard is people saying they find significant portions of the course disappointing.

"Envy".  Not sure where you got that either.

Who is envious?

[kilfara]

I like Tim W.'s semi-comparison of Pebble Beach to Old Head. Ran, to answer your original question, "No," but to say that Pebble's setting is "incomparable" is an injustice to (among others) Cypress Point, which has half as many oceanside holes as Pebble but would also win for me on aesthetics even if you took out the cart paths at Pebble.

Pat, to take a look at your list of greensites:

2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,14,16,17,18

Comments:

--I'm not quite sure why you have #2 on this list. What's so special about it?

--#14 wins points for originality for me, but at the end of an uphill 550-yard hole? That green would work far better on a 500-yard hole, wouldn't it? (It's designed for a very high wedge or short-iron approach, with only an unrealistic bail-out alternative to the right; the approach is beyond a majority of golfers who play there, I would imagine.)

--#17 green is overrated, for me. The two halves don't really join up with one another in any playable fashion; it's almost like having two separate (a la Pacific Dunes)super-small greens for a mid-to-long-iron par 3, and the one on the right makes the hole very ordinary.

--Funnily enough, I would add #15 green to your list - its "three corners" design (front, back left, back right) is quite clever, for me.

All in all, though, Pebble's greensites stack up well with some of the greatest courses in the world, for me. My disappointment with the course has more to do with what Pebble has to show me from tee to green. There are several sublime moments, to be sure, but for a Top 10 course there's an awful lot of mediocre fare on offer (holes 2, 11, 14, 15 are very average, and there are other holes which are good but not great). I think the reason I prefer Pacific Dunes to Pebble, if I may reintroduce that comparison here for just a moment, is that a far greater proportion of shots at PD are highly enjoyable for me than they are at Pebble.

Please do remember that we're talking about what has been ranked the no. 1 or no. 2 course in the USA. A course which is ranked so highly deserves far more intense scrutiny than no. 10 or no. 20. For me, there are a number of tests which Pebble can't pass.

Cheers,
Darren

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()