[Darren_Kilfara]

The original question asked if Pebble could have been designed better, not if Pebble should be changed given the opportunity.

Cheers,
Darren

[RDecker]

Given the site and the restrictions of the day I'd be willing to bet that Mr. Mackenzie, Ross, Tillinghast, Flynn or in today's terms, Mr. Doak or C&C could have come up with a superior routing and maximized the visual as well as the strategic.

[Tom_Doak]

Every golf course could be better -- in the eye of the beholder.

And once it was perfected by that beholder, another beholder would change it to more closely reflect his own idea of perfection.

And that's how tinkering hurts golf course architecture.

I think I could improve Pebble Beach, as I am sure do most of the golf architects who ever lived.  But it's pretty good as it is, so I'm content to build my own new courses and see if I can do anything better that way.

[ChipOat]

Tom Doak:

Are you able/willing to discuss what the future opportunities might be for you to "amend and improve" your work at Sebonack as the ground matures and it becomes more clear how each hole actually plays?  Would it appeal to you to have a long length of time to "polish" Sebonack a la MacDonald and Ross?

Have you had such an opportunity at any of your other fine courses?  In general, is it desirable?

[Geoffrey Childs]

But it's pretty good as it is, so I'm content to build my own new courses and see if I can do anything better that way.

From your mouth to Tom Fazio, Roger Rulewich and Rees Jonses' ears we can only hope.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Darren Kilfara,


Absent ALL of the substantive FACTS surrounding the genesis, design and construction of the golf course you can't begin to make intelligent commentary.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Every golf course could be better -- in the eye of the beholder.

And once it was perfected by that beholder, another beholder would change it to more closely reflect his own idea of perfection.

And that's how tinkering hurts golf course architecture.

These words should be memorialized...... in stone.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"And that's how tinkering hurts golf course architecture.

These words should be memorialized...... in stone."

Patrick:

And these words from the same man who suggested adding tee length to NGLA's #7, and more alarmingly moving Macdonald's Gates so 50-60 yards could be added to that hole. Is that not tinkering, or do you make an exception because you think it's your idea?    
 
 

[Darren_Kilfara]

Whether or not you think Pebble Beach is an incredible design, I *guarantee* you that if someone else had been given the original site instead of Jack Neville (et al.), and that alternate architect had designed the course from scratch, and you were then able to compare the alternate course to the current design (or the design before the new 5th hole was instituted, or at any other point during the course's history), someone would like the other course better. Perhaps even most people would. Isn't that the point of the question? Why do some people have to turn an idle thought exercise into a diatribe against tinkering with an existing golf course, when the latter was not mentioned in the first place? (I mean, if this discussion group included Messrs. Nicklaus, Fazio and Rees Jones, and I thought one of them might pick up on the idea of overhauling PB and turning it into something else, that would be one thing...but there is no practical cost of thinking about how one *might* have done better with one of the most famous sites in golf, is there?)

Cheers,
Darren

[ForkaB]

Well said, Darren

It seems to me that there are two extreme trains of thought at work here:

1.  A golf course is a piece of art, and should therefore never be altered.

2.  A golf course is a playing field, whose characteristics can and should be altered by those owning the field and playing the game.

Or, to say it another way--what is more important, form or function?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"And that's how tinkering hurts golf course architecture.

These words should be memorialized...... in stone."

Patrick:

And these words from the same man who suggested adding tee length to NGLA's #7, and more alarmingly moving Macdonald's Gates so 50-60 yards could be added to that hole. Is that not tinkering, or do you make an exception because you think it's your idea?    

Elasticity, vis a vis lengthening tees was an inherent feature that many architects, including your beloved Flynn incorporated into their designs, so lengthening # 7 to bring the "hotel" bunkers back into play is a prudent suggestion.

As to CBM's gates, you should remember that those gates were an afterthought.  That road never existed when the golf course opened.  That road caused the Cape green on # 14 to be destroyed and moved to the left.  Had CBM had the good sense to move those gates 50 yards north, elasticity could be employed, by lengthening that tee, in order to bring the leftside fairway bunkers back into play.

Moving the gates 50 yards north remains a prudent concept, as does using the elasticity inherent in the design.

I believe that George Bahto agrees with moving the tee back on # 7.  I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on # 18.

If the gates were moved 50 yards north, few would even notice it, yet the hole would benefit tremendously.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Whether or not you think Pebble Beach is an incredible design, I *guarantee* you that if someone else had been given the original site instead of Jack Neville (et al.), and that alternate architect had designed the course from scratch, and you were then able to compare the alternate course to the current design (or the design before the new 5th hole was instituted, or at any other point during the course's history), someone would like the other course better.

It remains a fruitless exercise or mental masturbation, take your pick.  It's ridiculously hypothetical.  Why not hypothesize about building the alternate course on the moon ?[/color]

Perhaps even most people would. Isn't that the point of the question? Why do some people have to turn an idle thought exercise into a diatribe against tinkering with an existing golf course, when the latter was not mentioned in the first place? (I mean, if this discussion group included Messrs. Nicklaus, Fazio and Rees Jones, and I thought one of them might pick up on the idea of overhauling PB and turning it into something else, that would be one thing...but there is no practical cost of thinking about how one *might* have done better with one of the most famous sites in golf, is there?)


It's an absurd waste of time that leads people to believe that they can improve on golf courses, including their home course.

And, I've heard that rationale at GCGC when some wanted to alter and modernize the golf course.

Their defense was, "well if ANGC can alter and change their golf course to suit modern play, we can do the same thing with GCGC.

As to the exercise, if you were ernest in that pursuit, you'd supply a topo of the property and let the geniuses on this site have a go at it.

Talk is cheap.
Let's see you and others improve on the design, in theory.[/color]
Cheers,
Darren

[Patrick_Mucci]

It seems to me that there are two extreme trains of thought at work here:

1.  A golf course is a piece of art, and should therefore never be altered.

2.  A golf course is a playing field, whose characteristics can and should be altered by those owning the field and playing the game.

Or, to say it another way--what is more important, form or function?

Your question implies that the form wasn't adequate to perform the function, which is not the case 99 % of the time.

The dilema is exactly as Tom Doak stated.

Once the golf course becomes fair game for alterations, it's open season for each revolving green chairman, committee, president and board.

And, we know from past experience that in a disproportionate number of cases, tinkering with the classics results in disfiguration of the golf course on an ongoing basis.

I'm not saying that improvements can't be made, but, in practice, once the golf course is subjected to alteration by one membership, it will most certainly be altered by succeeding memberships, resulting in a disfiguration of the original design integrity.

When you couple this with the "ME" generation, and the quest for fairness, the results are almost always the same, you begin to squeeze the distinctive life, the unique design that seperates courses from one another, out of the golf course with a trend toward mundane design.... sameness.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"And that's how tinkering hurts golf course architecture.

These words should be memorialized...... in stone."

Patrick:

Your response on post #35 to that quotation of Tom Doak's and the quotation of your response to his is one massive rationalization on your part. Don't give me any "elasticity" bull-shit. Elasticity is a very forward thinking design concept but it's not hard at all to tell on any particular golf hole where it's either been used up or may never have existed.

Obviously your philosophy about tinkering with classic golf courses is to do as I say not as I do. Either that or the "memorialized in stone" analogy you made must be some pretty flexible "stone".  

I happen to be one who believes that in some cases classic holes can be thoughtfully improved but you seem to always be the one who says they shouldn't be touched, tinkered with or tampered with---at least not unless it's you who's the one suggesting how to do tinker or tamper with them.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

George Bahto and I had to drag you screaming and kicking to the berm behind the current 7th tee to show you where a tee should be constructed, in order to bring the "hotel" bunker complex BACK INTO PLAY

That is the critical issue, returning the architectural features such that they interface with the golfer's game, and not sit there idly, like the Maginot Line, to be circumvented by technology.

Changing par, as you advocate, does not return those features, intended to impact the golfers thought processes and play, back to their intended function.

The same was done at # 8 to preserve the tee shot values and options, and the same was done to # 14.

Had you had your faithful companion, your seeing eye guide dog, Coorshaw, with you that day, you would have seen the light.

But, alas, you choose to remain where you're most comfortable... in the dark  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Jim, this is easy. You can make comments about any course including Cypress, ANGC, TOC, Muirfield, National and Pebble, but these courses are in the best in the world club. Nothing but nothing really needs to be done. I was there this weekend and I am telling you after 30 rounds there, the only thing that needs to be changed at Pebble is the management and/or ownership. RJ Harper is great but after that.......

[Darren_Kilfara]

Patrick, I see where you're coming from, but let me say this: not everyone at GolfClubAtlas has an encyclopedic knowledge of golf courses like some do. On the other hand, I would imagine that at least 90% of the forum posters feel like they know Pebble Beach pretty well, whether through television or from visits in person - it's common ground for pretty much everyone, and therefore could serve as a neutral discussion point. In turn, discussion of Pebble Beach's merits - and yes, even possible areas for improvement - could help more fully introduce some posters to the sorts of architectural language and concepts many of us cherish. Such a discussion could even be useful beyond GolfClubAtlas, again because Pebble is a familiar icon of American golf - perhaps by challenging assumptions and pointing out "flaws" in the architecture, or perhaps by creating arguments about why the course is a great design which transcends its aesthetics.

If not Pebble, then perhaps other common ground could be found (Augusta National most obviously). Unfortunately, some posters will choose to use a course like NGLA or Sand Hills as "common ground", perhaps not realising that such choices disenfranchise huge segments of the forum who haven't been there and might not have the first clue how to even begin going about getting access, no matter how passionately interested about golf course architecture they might be. I've never seen NGLA or Sand Hills myself, for example, and while I'm sure they're both other-worldly courses, theirs is a language I cannot even begin to pretend to understand. The same is unfortunately true for the ever-dwindling number (or so it seems, anyway) of Australian regulars at GolfClubAtlas - they have some truly fantastic golf courses to call their own,  but hardly anyone in America has seen them, so talk of Kingston Heath, Victoria, New South Wales, maybe even Royal Melbourne comes across as unintelligible gibberish. And as for your oft-repeated maxims that (I'm paraphrasing here) you can't tell anything about a golf course from photos or television, and that you don't really know anything about it until you've seen it in X different wind directions and ground conditions...well, sure, but how limiting can you possibly hope to be? If those really were our guidelines the forum would have about four members and six threads in aggregate.  

The point I'm getting at is this: rather than STIFLING discussion about one of America's and the world's most popular golf courses, how about we see where that discussion leads and hope that such a discussion connects with GCA participants who may not be privy to the great but inaccessible golf courses of America and elsewhere? Many people long for a world in which GolfClubAtlas has more influence in the wider golfing world - isn't this exactly the sort of thread that could be used to put that process more rapidly in motion? Someone made the excellent suggestion that Pebble might have been better if it had crossed over from the 8th green to the inward half of the course, creating a great downhill par 4 (the inverted 11th) and some other interesting holes; that's a good starting point to contradict the idea that "talk is cheap", is it not?

Cheers,
Darren

[A_Clay_Man]

Darren- The course is being altered. However, not in any way that anyone with any sophistication would.

Didn't our administrator write an article highlighting the direction that should be taken?


Messrs Harper et all have decided it best to disfigure the hallowed grounds inorder to insure favored nation status with the USGA, not in the interests of GCA.

[paul cowley]

Adam....I played there this summer after a long absence. I was less than pleased with alot of the surrounding visuals and changes made since I played the course 200+ times some thirtyfive years ago....maybe its just halcyon mists but I felt little sense of improvement ......actually very much the opposite....I feel most here on GCA would think it was better then. [maybe because the greens fees were only $65]
I sure do.

[paul cowley]

BTW, I'm with TomD on this one in that even though I feel strongly that I could improve Pebble with my aforementioned routing changes, I wouldn't.......too much history... and although I don't mind wearing red plaid every so often, it sure beats wearing a red target on my back.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Darren,

A more productive discusion might make Spanish Bay, Bandon Dunes or Pacific Dunes the focus of the exercise because they're far more contemporary.  We can probably obtain access to the details and facts surrounding their creation, design and construction, whereas that information may never be obtained with respect to PB.

But, in the interest of discussion, let the suggestions regarding improving PB come forth.

[paul cowley]

...now that Pat has put Pacific Dunes on the table, I saw a few mid body routing options that were good alternatives [ but the back to back threes would have had to go]....cost me two or three strokes by loss of focus but I would of just as soon played without clubs because the land and Toms solutions were that good......my own game being a distraction.

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

The only way to change the back to back par 3's to any satisfaction would have been to rip up the seventh hole at Bandon Dunes so I could make the tenth into a short par-4 ... that was my original idea, because the holes at Bandon Dunes weren't on my original map.  However, I had to build the eleventh, and the only way to get to that tee was to put the tenth green where it is, and I couldn't see building a par-4 up over the upper tenth tee.

Darren:

You are right ... if there were two or ten different versions of Pebble Beach, there would be no unanimous agreement as to which of them was best.  But that is really just saying that golf architecture is an art form and subjective in its very nature, isn't it?  And would you really want to play UPHILL toward the ninth tee instead of down to that beautiful green stuck out looking down the beach to Carmel, just so the eleventh could play downhill and out to sea?

[paul cowley]

Tom ....what makes you think the new #13 [the old nine in reverse ] would play uphill?
My plan would be to make a quarry like cut for its greensite to get enough fill to cover the new maintanance building and the stupid little half way revenue house with enough dirt to create some great stadium mounding for the next Open venue.

...see, once you get the hang of this design stuff it just gets easier an easier.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Although there is some room behind the 7th tee it most certainly is not ideal back there for a new back tee. To get enough length back there you'd either have to get too close to the 12th green or if you placed the tee enough away from it you tend to get it too much behind #6 green so players on the 6th tee have that green back-dropped by players teeing off on #7. Things like that probably don't even occur to you. You'd probably just do it without even recognizing that and find out the reaction to it after the fact. The best policy is to just not tinker with classic courses unless you really know what you're doing and unfortunately you pretty much need to depend on me to explain that to you.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()