[Mike Benham]

Ditto for #16.  What is wrong with this long, difficult par 4?  What was done to ruin it?  I earned a pretty good par on it with four well played shots.

There was a smallish tree (or was it tall and skinny?) on the crook of the dogleg the required your tee shot to be farther left in the fairway ...

Before it was a "played-longer-and-more-difficult-par-4" ...

[A_Clay_Man]

Lou And Mike- It was much more than just the loss of the tree on the inside right elbow. The green was also eerily gaurded by two magnificiant trees. The atmosphere was enhanced by the Spanish Moss hanging from the branches. One tree, was in front of where the current left greenside bunker, the other, was right side and short. The two together created a shot demand that only a right to left ball flight could safely negotiate. Also the green was lowered some considerable amount in the front, and if I recall correctly, a little less in the back.

As I understand it, there is now a bunker short and right acting as containment in front of the hazard.

All in all, Spyglass Hill is but a shadow of it's former aesthetic, and penal, glory. Sure all the modern trimmings look nice and somewhat manicured but in reality, the knife in the pirates teeth was mostly some of the more natural nastiness that dotted the design. i.e. Fronting bunker on two was real dunesland left untouched. Now it's a thumb print, with a circular quality, only a mother could love.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mike I do not see the cluster as a major break with the course if the general shapes and maintenance practices are the same. It is a well bunkered course in general includes such things as having almost all of 5 surrounded by them.

[Mike Benham]

It was much more than just the loss of the tree on the inside right elbow. The green was also eerily gaurded by two magnificiant trees. The atmosphere was enhanced by the Spanish Moss hanging from the branches.

Adam -

You are correct, I just remember that once the tree at the crook got in my way, I was scrambling for my life from the Pirate with a knife in his teeth ...

[Lou_Duran]

Adam,

I hope that Redanman is not paying attention.  I was under the impression that trees in the line of play were enigmas on this site.

Historically, The Glass has come under criticism for three major things: 1) it is way, way too difficult,  2) it is too soft and wet,  3) the WOW factor is much too early (premature ejaculation), so the rest of the experience is unsatisfying.

Your problems with the changes appear to be that they have made the course easier.  As you know, I am no Phil Mickelson, but I can generally tool around in the low to mid-80s from the tips.  Suffice it to say that my score on the "easier" Glass was 18 strokes higher than my last visit in 1983 (when the course was a near swamp), and the unthinkable triple digits was not all that far from sight.  By the way, I hit 11 fairways this time, and the course was remarkably dry (with little roll, however).  Perhaps the knife is no longer in the pirate's mouth, having found a better place up my a--.

As to the inland holes, most are outstanding and none lack beauty.  If an ocean view is what makes a course great, there are some in the area that are better.  The forest holes are just fine by me.

Give me a choice of playing Spyglass and/or Pebble Beach 10 times and I would split them 6/4 or 7/3.  The Glass does not have 8-10, 16, and 18, but it is a much stronger collection of holes.  At $295, it is a huge bargain relative to PBGL's $425.  Personally, I was very impressed with the new, "kinder" Spyglass.  It was lots of fun even while establishing a new 30+ year high mark.

[THuckaby2]

Lou:

I'd agree that Spyglass is a great golf course.  And yes, at $130 less than Pebble, it is a "bargain" based purely on the dollars.  But please.  Anyone who's gonna pay either fee is not gonna care much about bargains.  That's like telling someone who bought a Lamborghini that it's $10K less than a Ferrari (if that works - I'm not exactly up on high-priced cars).  

If people are gonna pay full freight, they want a LOT of bang for their buck.  My feeling is they get much more at Pebble.  There have been no Opens at Spyglass, no Watson chip-ins, no Nicklaus flagstick-hits, no Bobby Jones early-eliminations, etc.  There are no shots over or near the ocean.  The first tee holds no ass-tightening due to tourists watching.  You've seen no thousands of pictures of the golf holes.  

Thus my feeling is for the full-freight payers, well... go ahead and drop the extra $130 and play the course you really want to play.  The one that's gonna be a life-time experience, no matter how long the round takes.

In any case, that's obviously just one way to look at it, and has nothing to do with "architecture".  But you do mention Spyglass as a "bargain", and those who pay the full fees generally aren't there for the architecture, so......

Now as for the two golf courses themselves outside of all this, as much as I do love Spyglass and defend it against its detractors, I can't see fit to call it better than Pebble their either.  As a pure test of golf, it is.  It is a more difficult golf course, bottom-line.  And it is a very "fair" test.  I'm just not prepared to say that makes it better.  That's only one part of the equation, and a fairly unimportant one to me.

They are pretty easy to compare.  Do it match play and at least as I've done it, PB clearly wins... and that's after being 3 down after 5... Do it 3s against 3s, 4s against 4s, 5s against 5s and PB also wins...

BUT.. reasonable minds will obviously differ.  Bottom line for me is if you give me 10 rounds to split between them, well after fainting from my incredible good fortune, I split it 7 Pebble, 3 Spyglass.  Maybe even 8 and 2.  And I have played each quite a few times as it is.  I'm pretty damn lucky on that point.

One thing in any case:  methinks you need to play PB again before this assessment gets made.  You didn't do so this past trip, right?

I say that because for awhile I was thinking like you, that PB wasn't "all that"... that Spyglass, Pasa, both MPCC courses might be better... then I played it again... it is all that, and more.

TH

[Mike Benham]

Lou -

I think that the argument against Spyglass is not so much what is there but what COULD be there ...

Mike

Ps:  hmmm, kind of the same argument at Spanish Bay ...

[Mike Hendren]

Lou -

I think that the argument against Spyglass is not so much what is there but what COULD be there ...

Mike

Mike, what exactly COULD be there? I admittedly lack such vision.

Mike

[A_Clay_Man]

lou, While the good doctor Bill may have an aversion to all trees, I do not. Stereotyping the site is really a misnomer.

My comments were mostly aboout the look at spy and some of it's specific features, not the play.
Any hole, featureless or not, can be a difficult slog at one time or another. Just as any difficult hole can be easily handled with fine shots. How one plays the course, post change to pre, is not and was not a focus of my comments.

But, I am glad you found the hazard to the right of eleven, you illustrated my earlier point of having no place to reasonably drop.

[Lou_Duran]

Huck,

I have not played PB since 1983, and it is doubtful that I'll fork-over the 425 smackers to play it again.  However, during each of my last three visits to the Peninsula, I have walked nearly all the holes at least a couple of times, and all the best ones forwards and backwards.

I do understand your main points, and indeed PB has much more glamor than the Glass.  However, I am confused as to how you can believe that the Glass is a better test of golf, yet have it loosing to PB on both match play formats.

Is #17 a better par 3 because Nicklaus hit the pin with a 1-iron to win the US Open (from a tee that is seldom if ever used anymore), or because Watson pitched it in from the fringe to beat Nicklaus in another?  Are holes 1, 2, maybe 4, the lovely though one-dimensional 7, 13, 15 stronger than the weakest holes at the Glass?

BTW, the ASGCA was just there this and last week for its annual meeting.  I've only talked to one participant so far, and he too believes that the Glass is a superior course.  I asked if PB's punched greens had much to do with his assessment, and he said that it did not.  He just believes that the collection of holes at the Glass is better, though PB probably has more "best" holes.

Mike Benham,

Like Hendren, I am more into what's there vs. what could be.  It is dangerous for laymen to "visualize" what could very well be totally impossible.  Besides, us number jockeys don't often have a very good 3-D imagination.

By the way, I also really liked Spanish Bay.  It is very gamy in the wind, the routing is nice, the conditioning is excellent for where it is at, and the aesthetics are great.  Sure, it would be better if it was firmer and the natives weren't so thick and off-limits.  However, it is a resort course, and it must meet the expectations of its customers.

I am interested in the changes that would make SB and the Glass all that much better.  You can be as general or detailed as you'd like.  

[THuckaby2]

Lou:

Your incredulity just illustrates how we look at things differently.  To me it's perfectly normal and acceptable that one course could be a better test of golf than another, but inferior to it in terms of "greatness."  Why?  How?  Well, "test of golf" is not what it's all about, to me.  So many more things go into a course than how it tests one's game.  If that's one's most important criteria, than I'd expect Spyglass to be seen as superior to Pebble.  And believe me, lots of people do look at it this way.  So you are far from alone in your assessment, as your example cited shows.

That certainly does nothing to sway ME, however.

 

Look at it this way:  I'd say #3 Pebble is a superior hole to #3 Spyglass.  The former is a hole on which a lot of birdies can be made - one can make it very short taking it around or over the trees.  The latter is a double-bogey waiting to happen, particularly from the tips in the wind.  So one is tougher, but the other is better.  Why?  Because #3 Pebble entails a very cool tee shot with a definite choice to be made, with different consequences depending on the miss, and how bold or cautious one wants to be.  Then the approch is a soul-stirring one as one turns to the ocean for the first time, with that incredible view... On top of that, the green is devilish.  #3 Spyglass is a very neat hole, for sure... and in the world of drop-shot par threes it is near the top... it just doesn't measure up to PB#3 overall.

That's just one example.  That's how this assessment can go.

Now regarding:

"Is #17 a better par 3 because Nicklaus hit the pin with a 1-iron to win the US Open (from a tee that is seldom if ever used anymore), or because Watson pitched it in from the fringe to beat Nicklaus in another?"

In a word, yes.  That matters.  A true golfer does not play with his heart closed (outside of competition, that is).  It's a rare player over the age of 30 at least who plays 17 PB and doesn't at the very least inspect the spot from which Watson chipped, if not try one himself.  That matters.  That adds to the greatness of that golf hole.  Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the "architecture"... but I've said too many times man does not live by architecture alone.

I'd also venture to say it does effect the playing of the hole, for the vast majority of golfers anyway.  It's tough for most to play that hole and NOT think of the historic events that have occurred there, and thus most tend to tighten up and the result is the hole plays tougher than it should!

Lou, obviously you and I see this differently.  I don't expect you to agree with any of this, but I do expect you to understand it.

[Lou_Duran]

Actually Huck, we are probably closer on this than you think.  How a course falls in my pecking order has much more to do than a simple addition of its parts or a match-play comparison to another.  My incredulity was not how you could find an inferior test of golf to be "greater", but how on a playing test matching holes, the inferior can beat the superior.

You did notice that I didn't mention #3 at Pebble nor #3 at the Glass.  I like #3 very much in its sequence at PB; I don't think highly of #3 at Spyglass from the back tees in the often windy conditions.

As to #4 at Spyglass, it is full of options of the tee as well as on the second shot, and birdie can be had there provided that you choose wisely.  I think that it is an awsome hole, and quite superior to #3 at PB.  #2 at the Glass to PB's #3  would be a much closer contest.

Not that I necessarily disagree with your logic regarding PB's #17, but how can a truly great but fairly unknown hole ever be compared to one with lots of notoriety?  E.g. the great #17 at Sand Hills?  When comparing holes, shouldn't the primnary focus be on what's in the ground vs. how Nicklaus and Watson played it in a major?  You are not arguing for bringing back GD's tradition category, are you?

[Ted Kramer]

I would go 6/4, Pebble to Spyglass,
or maybe even 5/5.

- #4 Spyglass is my all-time favorite.

- The walk down the first fairway at Spyglass as it wraps around to the left leading to that incredible view is the most scenic walk I've ever taken on a golf course.

That is 2 all-time bests for me at Spy.
Pebble doesn't have any on my "all-time best" list.

Oh and by the way, I think #11 looks great.
It is a perfect risk reward situation after a good drive.

-Ted

[THuckaby2]

Lou:

I guess I don't understand your question.  I explained how a hole that is "easier" can also be "better":  the two #3 holes.  Thus an inferior in difficulty wins in terms of overall greatness.  So in the match play comparison, #3 PB beats #3 Spyglass.  I don't get what you're asking beyond that.

As for the rest, while I would certainly not tell the good folks at GD how to do their rating methodology, I do think everything I described matters.  I have been persuaded that one factors this in one way or the other, no matter what the exact criteria state, or whether there is a specicific criterion set out for it or not.  That is, it could effect "ambience" or something else, in the GD methodology.  The bottom line point remains to me that it matters.  

Just rest assured that it's not ALL that matters, far from it.  As great as #17 PB is (and yes, to me it's better than #17 Spyglass), it loses to #17 Sand Hills, which of course has never seen a tournament.  #17 Sand Hills has enough other positives to overcome the lack of historic events.  The same goes for any golf hole.  It just seems silly to me NOT to count such where they do exist.

Look at it this way:  I'm not dying to play Oakmont because Kyle Harris and George Pazin say it's better than Pebble (although that does contribute to my desire to play there).  I'm dying to play it so I can compare to Miller, Arnie, Nelson, etc.  To say that shouldn't count seems really silly to me.  Damn near all golfers think this way.

But please, do you REALLY want to get into another battle over GD's criteria?  I believe I have enough to deal with bulldogging Matt Ward there.

TH

[Brent Hutto]

I've never been comfortable with this match-play course comparison thing. The typical course
that really stands out as "great" is one with many fabulous holes and/or no really weak holes.
So we aren't really compaing 18 holes that can be assumed similar in quality and giving the
nod to one course or another based on a series of 18 subtle comparisons.

Take for example Pasatiempo and Spyglass Hill. I know for sure that I liked Spyglass better,
in fact I preferred it very strongly. Yet if I do the match-play it comes out the other way
around:

#1 Spyglass (no question)
#2 Spyglass (not even close)
#3 Pasatiempo
#4 Spyglass (hardly worth comparing)
#5 Pasatiempo
#6 -tie-
#7 Spyglass
#8 Pasatiempo
#9 -tie-

#10 Pasatiempo
#11 -tie-
#12 Pasatiempo
#13 Pasatiempo (the weakest hole at Spyglass)
#14 -tie-
#15 Pasatiempo
#16 -tie-
#17 Spyglass Hill (huge difference)
#18 -tie-

So that's a 3-up win for Pasatiempo with the back nine being a blowout. Yet there was only
one "win" for Pasa that wasn't a very close call with an almost-equally fine hole at Spyglass.
OTOH, four of the "wins" for Spyglass were cases of a hole worth travelling a long way to play
compared to fairly pedestrian holes at Pasatiempo.

[THuckaby2]

Brent:

It is an odd way to compare courses, and doesn't always yield the result one believes, as your example shows.  It just is one way to do this.  Another is to compare the par 3's to par 3s, par 4s to par 4s, par 5s to par5s... and do that either match play hole for hole or just assess the three groups collectively.

There's certainly no science to this.

These methods do just seem to be the coin of the realm in here, so to speak.

TH

[Jeff Goldman]

Sorry guys, I have it is at least 8-2 for Pebble, maybe 9-1 out of 10 plays.

On the "which is more fun" test, Pebble wins hands down.  On the "which has more great holes" test, Pebble wins hands down.  On the "which is more unique" test, Pebble wins hands down.  

On the "which is harder" test, Spyglass wins, but that doesn't mean it or Butler National is better than Cypress Point, or that Butler or Spyglass is better than Pacific Dunes, Crystal Downs or a bunch of other courses I haven't seen.  

To play one of the great stretches of golf holes in the world even if there are some mundane holes preceeding and post-ceding it, far, far trumps Spyglass' very good, very hard forest stretch (which can be found in a lot of different places) and great dunes holes at the start.  And the big contoured greens at Spyglass are no match for the tiny unique greens at Pebble.  Jones built a lot of those.

Jeff Goldman

[THuckaby2]

Jeffrey Goldman, Esq.:

Many thanks for that post.  I must say I concur completely.  That was very well said, with an eloquence and brevity that has inspired me to try to better achieve both those worthy goals.

OK, that's the best I can do being formal.  Back to normal, let me just say:  right on, brother!

And I say this fully believing Spyglass is a great golf course - greater than most people give it credit for.  It just ain't Pebble.

TH

[Bob_Huntley]

Jeff,

Take away the first five holes and what have you got? A long slog that is no different from dozens of other courses nationwide.

I agree with you, Pebble is an easy winner. I do not compare the prices, I can play Spyglass for $15.00.

[Lou_Duran]

TH,

You answered the questions I asked you so you must have gotten the gist.  And I would never ask you to defend something that you've had no part in creating.  I only brought up the tradition criteria because GD made a fairly big deal out of having dropped it (and its effects on the rankings).  You seem to be arguing that history and tradition are indeed very important.

BTW, I agree that resistance to scoring should not be paramount.  If it was, Sand Hills would definitely trump CPC in my personal favorite list.

Now that Goldman has exposed just how ridiculous my high regard for the Glass is, well, I should just crawl back into my hole with tail tucked between my legs.  But hell, if I said that Olympia Fields was the best course in Chicago, he would respond with a B.S., and that Cog Hill #4, Medinah #3, Chicago, Shoreacres, and even Skokie are clearly more fun and superior.  Or if I said that Bush really mucked-up the Iraq War, he would disagree vehemently and cite the critics' pre-war estimates of 20,000+ Americans killed in the first year, and how that part of the world could never hold a democratic election.

But what really drove the final nails into my coffin was Sir Huntley declaring that the Glass was an ordinary 13-hole long slog.  That he can play it for $15 clearly demonstrates that the course is an inferior good only worhty of consumption during bleak times.  Personally, I have an affinity toward potatoes and cheap wine and beer, so I really wish that Mr. Moore had taken a liking to me.  If I could play the Glass for $15, I would never again think of Pebble Beach.  I guess that I enjoy long slogs that make me feel powerless.  It must be a deep-seated psychological flaw.  

[THuckaby2]

 

Lou, you are a very good sport.  Not many could so graciously handle such a ganging-up-upon.

In any case good lord do I hope one's preferences for golf courses are not revelatory of psychological flaws.  Given I wistfully pine for the old horribly penal Bayonet... while at the same time trumpeting "fun" over "difficult"... well it doesn't take a doctorate to guess what that would reveal.

 

[Mike Benham]

Lou -

I think that the argument against Spyglass is not so much what is there but what COULD be there ...

Mike

Mike, what exactly COULD be there? I admittedly lack such vision.

Mike

Mike -

I was only noting the numerous comments made in the past about a different routing for Spyglass, somehow ending in the dunes.  From that view, my vision or lack thereof is similar to yours.

Spyglass is a difficult test of golf.  I do not like the ponds that were created, if these were naturally wetlands when the course was built, then I believe they could have done a better job keeping that natural setting in place.  If Spyglass did not have the 4 dunes holes, how different would it be from Poppy Hills?

Lou - in regards to Spanish Bay, you may have liked it, I'm not saying that I did or didn't but what could have been built at Spanish Bay if there weren't so many restrictions on the property or the required location of the hotel.

Mike

[Jeff Goldman]

Lou,

I haven't exposed anything except that we have different opinions.  Nor would I say that Dubs, Medinah, etc. are clearly superior to OFCC, though, at least for the crummy golfer like me, Shoreacres probably is, and I certainly don't think you ridiculous (or think myself ridiculous) because you think so    

However, can we all just get along and say that the score would 9-1 or 10-0 if we were comparing MPCC to Spyglass?  That's an easy one, no?

[Pete Lavallee]

However, can we all just get along and say that the score would 9-1 or 10-0 if we were comparing MPCC to Spyglass?  That's an easy one, no?

Maybe not, if Bob can get us off for $15.

[Lou_Duran]

Mike Benham,

I keep hearing the suggestion that the site should have yielded a greater course.  Also that but for the regulatory restrictions and the need for an Inn, it could have been something superior.  Perhaps so.

My understanding is that the site had been pretty much mined out down to the rock, and that the sand and soils had to be imported.  It is apparent that the site will have some difficulty staying firm with relatively healthy turf due to the lack of suitable drainage (for those conditions).  Perhaps rather than attempting to build a faux links, they should have gone all the way with a more convential American style.

Personally, I enjoyed every minute of my four hours out there.  When I return to the area, it will be on my list again.

Jeff Goldman,

You are not going to pull me into an MPCC vs. Spyglass argument.  They are two entirely different courses.  A better comparison might be Shore to CPC, two outstanding club courses where I could play every day and never get tired of either.

As to Spyglass, I am dying to get out there again to verify that I am not as bad a player as the course indicated.  I enjoy difficult courses as long as they are playable.  Spyglass falls in this category, but I doubt that I would want an exclusive diet of it, Bayonet, and Poppy Hills.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()