[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

The issue for me isn't about Pac and the original 18. I concede Pac is the better overall course -- both design wise and from the standpoint of what the greens offer.

The issue is whether Pac belongs at the top of the heap among all courses -- both classic and modern. That's a big leap because of the stature of the courses already there and because there is competition -- as the courses I have listed -- clearly provide.

Tim -- just a tip -- look at the varied and solid nature of the par-4 holes at Pac. Do they not outweigh by a somewhat healthy margin what you see with the par-3 and par-5 type holes? That's the issue, I believe, you need to analyze. World class courses leave little room for error and are nearly bulletproof.

Pac is clearly a superb effort but when held under the largest of microscopes you can see the elements I am outlining for the purpose of differentiation at the top tier level.

Give you an example in regards to BB. The scale of the property and the quality of the holes is stellar -- however -- BB doesn't have the caliber of the greens to merit being in the top 20-25 courses I have personally played.

[Tim Bert]

Matt - I wasn't trying to return the focus to whether PD was better than BD.  I was trying to explain what helps in my mind what puts it in the top echelon by comparing it with what largely prevents its sister from the achieving the same accolades in my mind.

I really do think the par 3s offer a good bit of diversity.  They all have a different look and feel, some feed of the ocean, but three of them don't.  On a typical round in the summer wind, I might hit everything from a wedge to a hybrid on this set of holes.  I think that 5, 14, and 17 are great compliments to the eye candy of 10 and 11.  I also still think that 11s merits stand on its own without the ocean.  The same hole could be built 100 yards inland if the terrain permitted and it would still be cool.

[Tim Bert]

Matt,

Let me ask you a question that might help enlighten me.  I have never played Pebble Beach.  Are you amongst those that count that on the short list of the greatest courses?

If not, then maybe someone else who is can help with answers.  If so, then I'd like to learn from your experience...

It seems like if the ocean gets overweighted it would have about twice as much an effect on Pebble as it would Pacific due to the number of holes where it is a factor.  Do you agree?

Is is the ocean that makes Pebble so great, or is it other factors?

Think of it this way.  If Pacific and Pebble were located in the Sand Hills and could be routed exactly as they are today with the only difference being native grasses in the place where beach/ocean is located - which would be the better course?

If the answer is Pebble, then what makes it so great?  How are the green complexes more interesting?  How are the par 3s and 5s (apparently the "weakness" of PD) more strategic or more diverse?

I've only heard the 3rd hand comments that the inland holes at Pebble Beach lack the same interest as those at Pacific Dunes.  Again, not my opinion; just re-stating what I've heard others say that others have said.  Is this true, and is it not enough to swing the tide to PD only because there are so few inland holes at PB?

I've only seen the course on TV, but it certainly seems to be a whole lot about the ocean.

Please educate me.  Thanks!

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

If you like Ballyneal more because the terrain allowed the routing to change directions more, that's fine.  But the routing is not more "sophisticated".  The fact is that the dune valleys at Pacific Dunes (and the distance from the coastline to the inland dune) prevented one from routing east-to-west holes without presenting a bunch of blind shots and without screwing up the rest of the routing.  It was considered ... but it just wouldn't have worked.

That is the difference between being a real architect -- who has above all to consider the land he is given -- and a critic who is just checking off different aspects of a course he finds to be a virtue.  I'm not saying you're wrong to like Ballyneal better for its variation of directions, just asking you to understand that is a function of the property, not the design.

[Ted Kramer]

Matt:

If you like Ballyneal more because the terrain allowed the routing to change directions more, that's fine.  But the routing is not more "sophisticated".  The fact is that the dune valleys at Pacific Dunes (and the distance from the coastline to the inland dune) prevented one from routing east-to-west holes without presenting a bunch of blind shots and without screwing up the rest of the routing.  It was considered ... but it just wouldn't have worked.

That is the difference between being a real architect -- who has above all to consider the land he is given -- and a critic who is just checking off different aspects of a course he finds to be a virtue.  I'm not saying you're wrong to like Ballyneal better for its variation of directions, just asking you to understand that is a function of the property, not the design.

Tom,

That post is perfect example why I, and I'm sure so many other GCAers, appreciate your being a part of this community. And Matt, I don't mean any disrespect to you by making that comment.

-Ted

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

Fair enough question.

I view PB as the better of the two.

But, I would not include PB among the 10-15 finest courses I have played.

Why do I see it beyond Pac?

For starters, the greensites at PB are among the most demanding -- especially when they are firm and when any type of wind is blowing. I was there during the final round when Kite won in '92 and the course just got really nasty - almost out of control.

Too many times people simply view PB from the TV time it gets during the AT&T event. The course plays very slow and soft in most instances then. Played later in the season the character of the layout does change.

Tim, I do concede that the first few holes at PB can be a bit dull -- but that's just the build-up to what you get when you head near the water. The tiny targets are tough to hit and should you miss them -- the ability to scramble for par or whatever can be quite vexing.

Let's talk about the par-3 holes at PB -- each is solid -- the 5th was greatly improved by team Nicklaus -- the 7th is everything they say and more. The lone holdout -- the so-so 12th. The 17th is also worth the hype it gets. Edge -- PB.

On the par-5 side I'll stick to #2 playing as one -- although they have converted it into a par-4 for majors. It's a so-so hole as a par-5 although the barranca is quite good for those missing their tee shot to consider on the 2nd shot. The 6th is well worth the hype it gets. Ditto the 14th and the 18th - which makes for a rather exciting closer. Edge -- PB.

On the par-4 side you have holes that are just a tad below the qualities I find at Pac. With that said, the stretch from #8 through #10 is world class stuff that I have played. Edge -- slightly to Pac.

The thing to keep in mind is that minus the first few holes at PB -- the rest of the course is quite solid. It has also been tested at the highest of levels and the roster of champions speaks to its pedigree.

PB isn't bulletproof mind you but let me finish by saying this --for a course to EVEN HAVE a legitimate comparison with Pebble Beach speaks volumes to the qualities you find with Pac Dunes.

[Tim Bert]

Matt,

I appreciate the response, but as someone that has never seen Pebble live can you please get a little more specific on what makes the par 3s world class and better than the ones at PD.  As I said, I've played some courses with some pretty good par 3s (Whistling Straits, Banff Springs, Sand Hills, Ballyneal) and I like the ones at PD every bit as much as a set.  I think they are diverse set that allow for several different clubs to be played throughout the round.  Moreover, with the wind out there each one can play differently from day to day.

What is the shortfall of the par 3s at PD (hole by hole if you will be so kind) and in contrast what specifically makes each of the par 3s great at PB?

[Tim Bert]

Matt,

Whenever you get a break from all this O/T Golf Channel, Tiger Woods, problems with the PGA tour stuff....

I'd still appreciate an education on my last question on this thread.  Others that can specifically identify the "weaknesses" of the par 3s at PD and contrast that with the "strengths" of the par 3s PB please do!

You've given PD the slight nod on the par 4s, which makes up more than half of each course, so I'm trying to understand how the par 3s bring it down to earth.

Thank you!!

[Matt_Ward]

Tim B:

Have to say this buckeroo -- I've explained that with my previous post. The edge to Pac on the par-4's is very slight but the edge to PB is a tad more from the standpoint of the collective weight of the par-3 and par-5 holes. I also think the element of the total greensites favors Pebble because they are extremely difficult to hit (small in square footage) when the wind starts to kick in. Ditto when the greens become very hard and fast.

Tom D:

Fair point and appreciate the information / education. I'm always learning.

However, just because it "would not have worked" is a decision that needs to be assessed versus what you find at Ballyneal. Clearly, my emphasis on "sophisticated" is the wrong word choice for such matters.

Tom -- if the "function" of one property is limited versus the more expansive possibilities of another it does becomes an issue to consider and goes beyond simply being just a "check off" item that I, and possibly others, weigh when evaluating.

[Tim Bert]

Tim B:

Have to say this buckeroo -- I've explained that with my previous post. The edge to Pac on the par-4's is very slight but the edge to PB is a tad more from the standpoint of the collective weight of the par-3 and par-5 holes. I also think the element of the total greensites favors Pebble because they are extremely difficult to hit (small in square footage) when the wind starts to kick in. Ditto when the greens become very hard and fast.

Original comments

Tim:


Let's talk about the par-3 holes at PB -- each is solid -- the 5th was greatly improved by team Nicklaus -- the 7th is everything they say and more. The lone holdout -- the so-so 12th. The 17th is also worth the hype it gets. Edge -- PB.

Matt, If this is your idea of specific details let's just say I'm not holding my breath for any amazing revelations coming from the Ballyneal vs. Pacific Dunes thread.  Hopefully others will weigh in with something more than general comments like these.  I think it is fair to hold you to the same level of expectations on comments as you hold others, particularly given your worldlyness when it comes to golf travels.  Aren't you a writer, or did I read that incorrectly somewhere else?  Let's see some writing, buckaroo.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim B:

Try to re-read what I posted on PB.

I analyzed the holes in quick style -- do you want a War and Peace version? I don't know if you ever played Pebble but the collective par-3 holes -- save for the 12th -- are rock solid. The par-5 holes are also good -- particularly now that the 2nd is a converted par-4. But if people think of the hole as  par-5 it's the only one that's weak. The other three are very challenging holes.

I dare say the greensites are a good bit more challenging at PB because of their limited size. Missing greens at Pebble can be quite a challenge when they are hard and fast. The only edge for Pac is very narrow one on the par-4 holes.

Pac Dunes doesn't really sizzle on the par-3 front for me. I do like the 3rd especially and the 18th just a tad less, but the 12th and 15th holes are merely yardage fillers in my book.

Tim, filling verbiage is wonderful but I've given you the Cliff Notes version that says it all for me.

I can flush things a big further but I would need to know how you see the two -- if you've played both.

[Tim Bert]

Matt,

I let you know up front that I hadn't played Pebble, which is why I was looking for a little more something to chew on.    

I thought I did a fair job of giving you a little detail behind what I liked about each of the par 3s at PD.  I was just looking for a little more than "they don't it for me."  Are the greens uninteresting?  Are the bunkers misplaced?  

I've said repeadtedly that with the wind and the distance differences, I think the par 3s are pretty diverse and interesting at PD.   I'm more interested in your "War and Peace" of why PD par 3s aren't world class than I am in the specifics of why the PB par 3s are world class.  I think I've seen a decent representation of par 3s in my limited experience and the ones at PD hold up in my book.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

Frankly, you need to play Pebble in order to see firsthand what all the hype is about.

I have to add a good friend of mine was just there and the greens were in horrid shape from what he told me. So, things canbe quite fluid and it pays to know given the high tariff they charge.

The thing about Pebble is that, besides Augusta National and TOC, it's the most observed course on the planet. Everyone has a good idea of what the holes are and as a result plenty of fanfare -- both too high and too low -- can creep into the picture.

I've played Pebble about a half a dozen times at different times of the year. The layout can play easy - when the wind is down -- or very demanding when the wind blows and the greens dry out to be very fast. I can tell you this -- making a 4-foot putt on those greens is one of the most demanding exercises you can imagine.

If you look at the holes in a par grouping -- Pebble does quite well. But there's more to the course than that - Pebble eases the player into the round and then you hit the ocean holes and the first time you are exposed to them it is truly a sight to behold. You then go interior before re-emerging back to the ocean.

The other plus for Pebble is that it offers a high octance array of different holes - much like a first rate boxer who delivers a range of different combinations.

The strength of Pac is it's par-4's -- something Doak has said and agree with. The par-3's are simply not world class
holes -- save for the par-3 17th which is truly fun to play. The 11th is a nice postcard hole -- nothing more for me. The 5th is simpy a filler in between the dynamic par-4's with the 4th and 6th holes. The 10th is likely the second best par-3 for me at Pac. It does require a good bit more in terms of shot control. The short par-3 14th is simply ho-hum. I mean when you compare the likes of PB's 7th hole -- there's utterly no contest.

Tim -- Pac Dunes is a marvelous course and worthy of play by anyone who has passion for quality golf arcitecture. But, Pebble has its reputation and it's one that's justly earned in my book.

I hope the info I have provided is helpful in understanding where I'm coming from on this topic.

P.S. If you asked me which one is the better bargain on the wallet -- head to Pac and enjoy the replay rate that's offerted.

[Tim Bert]

Thanks for the extra effort.

To date, it is your last point that has me planning return trips to Bandon before I even may the first trip to Pebble.  Tough to beat $270 for 54 holes at PD, and I just can't imagine that Pebble can differentiate itself enough to warrant the $$ difference.  I guess as long as I really believe it, I won't know what I'm missing!  

Some time when I already know a year in advance that I have plans to be in the SF area AND I've got some money burning a hole in my pocket, then I'll break down and give it a shot.

Maybe if someone would just let me rate courses I could swing a comp.  Or maybe JaKa could have his pro call and arrange a discounted rate for me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()