[Mark_Fine]

The scenery IS part of the golf course (any golf course) and if Pat Mucci or others say it is not, they frankly don't understand golf course architecture.  Backdrops, long-range views, etc are all part of the architect's design and those features are integral to the end product.  

Those who try to separate them at Pebble from the rest of the design are just wasting their time (and everyone else's).  

Example - What if there was a corn field on the left of #18 in place of the ocean?  

Well there is NOT a corn field so deal with it as is  

The other point that needs to be stressed again is that there are some holes that are soooo special that those alone far more than make up for anything lacking in the others.  

The same arguement could be said of Cypress Point.  Most golfers would give their first born to just play three of the 18 holes and most of you know which three I mean  
Mark

[JESII]

Mark

How do you classify the really bad off-the-golf-course interference? Could be the smokestacks in the distance at Sandwich, or a road or buildings anywhere else in the world. Does the Golf Course Architecture get blame for them?

[Tom Huckaby]

OK, it's obvious I need to take hardass lessons - I hate all you guys!!!

 

But Mike and David, that is appreciated.  I do try to be a good egg.  

Now Mark... where were you when I was debating this endlessly with Mucci?  I was a lone wolf those days... but no matter, your fine logic is here now.  All I can say is AMEN.

But Sully does bring up a good questions... and I can't think of specific instances of BAD scenery ruining the golf.  I think it's more of a positive thing... that is, it can only help and not hurt.  BUT... Tom Doak once said on this issue that the skilled designer does take this into account, and if forced to make a course with bad backdrops, would find a way to minimize that as best as he can.  Not sure which came first at Sandwich - the smokestacks or the course - but if it is the former, well... I have to believe they must have done the best that they could.

TH

[Bob_Huntley]

Mark

How do you classify the really bad off-the-golf-course interference? Could be the smokestacks in the distance at Sandwich, or a road or buildings anywhere else in the world. Does the Golf Course Architecture get blame for them?

JES11,

I remember complaining about the ugliness of telephone poles and cross-arms in the Los Angeles basin and commented they should be banned and put underground. My then to be (now es) wife reminded me that her Trust fund was built on such ugliness and not to complain too much.

Bob

[JESII]

I can't tell you how sorry I am to hear that...is she looking for company?

[Andy Troeger]

But Sully does bring up a good questions... and I can't think of specific instances of BAD scenery ruining the golf.  I think it's more of a positive thing... that is, it can only help and not hurt.  BUT... Tom Doak once said on this issue that the skilled designer does take this into account, and if forced to make a course with bad backdrops, would find a way to minimize that as best as he can.  Not sure which came first at Sandwich - the smokestacks or the course - but if it is the former, well... I have to believe they must have done the best that they could.

TH

Tom,
I agree that the scenery does mean something, but I think that it does work both ways. After all, if you had the same exact hole, and one was #18 at Pebble, another was #18 with a cornfield to the left, and the third had a row of the ugliest condos you can think of, then doesn't it seem fair to say that what helps Pebble hurts the other two?

[Andy Troeger]

And as an add on to that...is the reason we don't have a lot of specific examples of this negative issue because those courses are never built in the first place?

[JESII]

And as an add on to that...is the reason we don't have a lot of specific examples of this negative issue because those courses are never built in the first place?

Of course not, they're out there...we just don't go there.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Pat sometimes just likes to argue for the sake of arguing and I don't have time for it.  Sorry I didn't chime in back then.

Jim,
Backdrops and scenery is relative and also subjective.  The golf architecture doesn't necessarily "get the blame" for them, but it does have to deal with it because it is part of it.  If for example, someone built a Burger King behind the 18th green at Sand Hills, I won't necessarily blame C&C, but unfortunately the golf architecture will suffer.  

I remember playing a golf course one time and I commented to my playing partner (who I had just met at the course) that the cement plant in the distance beyond the one green was a shame as it ruined the backdrop for the hole.  He looked at me and laughed and said, "I think it looks beautiful but then again, I own it"  

Pebble's views are part of the architecture and on a pretty day, they do not get any better anywhere in the world.  The course will all its flaws is a Doak 10.  That is my story and I'm sticking to it  

[Andy Troeger]

And as an add on to that...is the reason we don't have a lot of specific examples of this negative issue because those courses are never built in the first place?

Of course not, they're out there...we just don't go there.

That's the truth too, although we occasionally find the misfortune to stumble across them in the search for those hidden gems.

[JESII]

Mark,

It may not surpass Pebble, but New South Wales was every bit its equal.

What is the view of NSW from those who've played it? My reaction after one playing was Ballybunion with Pebble's scenery. Is it as good a golf test as I think after one trip?


Andy,

Without a doubt...

[JESII]

Boy, that Ballybunion/Pebble line is awful...should I have added something about the greens reminding me of Shinnecock...

[Adam Clayman]

Mark Fine and the Huckster (who basically was able to separate the GCA with the esspeeriance')-

You'd be 100% correct except for those times when fog shrowds the course.

The architecture stills stands out and is why it is possible to view it in a vaccum, so to speak.

Drop those holes anywhere, and if you are off your 60* logwedge you're fick'd.
 

[Bob_Huntley]

I remember playing a golf course one time and I commented to my playing partner (who I had just met at the course) that the cement plant in the distance beyond the one green was a shame as it ruined the backdrop for the hole.  He looked at me and laughed and said, "I think it looks beautiful but then again, I own it"  

Mark,

I love it. Years ago when taking a slow boat, The Mariposa, from Long Beach down to Sydney via Tahiti and Auckland, we had on the ship a veeery wealthy widow lady from the Permian Basin with her much younger companion in tow.

No matter what time of the day she wore a collection of diamonds that Queen Elizabeth would envy. One evening at dinner, one of the Dowager Duchesses aboard remarked to her that it wasn't quite the thing to wear diamonds in the country or at every meal. Our Texas Queen replied, "Honey, I always thought that, until I got 'em."


Bob

[PThomas]

I remember playing a golf course one time and I commented to my playing partner (who I had just met at the course) that the cement plant in the distance beyond the one green was a shame as it ruined the backdrop for the hole.  He looked at me and laughed and said, "I think it looks beautiful but then again, I own it"  

Mark,

I love it. Years ago when taking a slow boat, The Mariposa, from Long Beach down to Sydney via Tahiti and Auckland, we had on the ship a veeery wealthy widow lady from the Permian Basin with her much younger companion in tow.

No matter what time of the day she wore a collection of diamonds that Queen Elizabeth would envy. One evening at dinner, one of the Dowager Duchesses aboard remarked to her that it wasn't quite the thing to wear diamonds in the country or at every meal. Our Texas Queen replied, "Honey, I always thought that, until I got 'em."


Bob

Sir Bob:  you should write a book with all the stories you have!

[PThomas]

Hi Huck!

what I meant by my comment is that while I think Pebble is a great golf course, PD is an even better one, I think, in terms of quality golf holes

in other words, while Pebble has holes like 1, I don't think PD has any holes like that!

I love Pacific Dunes, truly I do.  Hell I'm risking marital life and limb to go up there again - my third trip up - in a few months.  And it's Pacific I look forward to playing the most.

It's just not Pebble Beach.  It's not a better golf course by any possible measurement.  

Paul - you have played Pebble Beach, right?  If you have, and you can still make this statement, well... I'll just say to each his own.

I gather by your statement re #1 though you are saying PD has no "mundane" holes, as several have been called at Pebble?  Well, I could name a few... but rather than focus on the negative, I think where this turns is on the positive.  Say I grant that that's true (which I don't, but for the sake of argument let's say I do).  Pebble's still better, because Pacific doesn't have any holes quite as glorious as 6-7-8-9-10-18 Pebble.  Sans crazy wind, it doesn't have any holes as maddeingly difficult as 14 Pebble.  And I know you purists like to keep things to "design" and thus discount this... but it's also not nearly as awe-inspiring in terms of scenery, nor does it have even close to the history that Pebble does.

Sorry my friend - on this one we shall have to agree to disagree...and rather strenuously so on my behalf.

And I swear I mean this as no knock on Pacific Dunes, which is a fantastic golf course by any measure.  As I say, it's just not Pebble Beach.  But one could say that about nearly every course on this planet.

TH

Huck:  I guess we are going to have to disagree ....and I might do so even more so if I saw the changes being done to PB

a fellow GCAer we know well agrees with me...I'll have to see if I can get him to post..maybe then you'll recognize the error of your ways

[Tom Huckaby]

Paul:

I have zero doubt there are others who feel as you do re these two courses.

That just sways me not.

 

[Joe Bentham]

Tom--
To compare PD and PB isn't fair to either.  Pac dosen't have the history PB doses.  And PB isn't half the course PD is.  The nice thing about it is the scenery is a wash.  Although the homes/cars general foot traffic take away from it at PB, IMO.  The golf holes just don't compare.  The Variety at Pac is immense.  Every single hole at Pac must be played from the Tee.  For example #6,  you've hit the fairway on the left side but have almost no chance at holding the green from that side.  Please help me remember a hole at PB where you can hit that fairway and be in as bad a shape as that.  PB is a second shot golf course all the way.  At Pac there are holes where the tee shot is the most important, holes where the second shot is the most important and holes where one of the two could be screwed up and there is still the chance at a great recovery.  PB just dosen't have that.  The challenge at PB comes from some of the smallest and steepest pitched greens in the country.  And after awhile that gets BORING!!

I also saw a post refering to Ben Hogan's theory on big greens.  In all due respect to the best ball striker of all time, Ben was off his rocker.  He is famously remebered for saying putts should count as 1/2 strokes.  Anyone in here agree with that??

[Tom Huckaby]

Joe:

I too said earlier in this thread that to compare these courses is unfair to each, but particularly so to Pacific Dunes.

Thus I'm just going to leave it be.  One who says PB isn't half the golf course PD is, well... that's a statement that's so wildly different from how I look at things, I just have no possible counter other than "to each his own."  I know you seem to want to debate this, but man we are going in circles.

Just do keep in mind also that I absolutely love Pacific Dunes - again I say, it's just not Pebble Beach - and nothing you just posted gets me to change that one iota.

As for the 1/2 putts thing, it's been debated in here many times.

TH

[Joe Bentham]

Tom--
You can love both, and I hate to compare.  The obvious reason for such a passionate discussion is sentimentality.  You love PB, and therefore won't allow yourself to view it objectively.  Same is to be said of me and PacDunes.  It is obvious that we have different ideas of beauty.  You can ignore all of the non-golf issues at PB, I can't.  You see it as the highest expression of golf architecture.  IMO Pac is as good a course as there is in the world.  I just don't think you can say that about PB.

[Tom Huckaby]

Joe:

Most of that is good stuff, but it would also help if you refrained from putting TOO many words in my mouth.  

Where did I ever say I saw either of these courses - ANY course - as the "highest expression of golf architecture."?

I'm here to talk about these golf courses.  If you want to talk about golf course architecture that's fine - it's just a completely different subject.

In any case, we do see this very very differently.  I can and will say Pebble Beach is pretty close to as good as any course in the world.  I'll also say Pacific Dunes is pretty darn close.

But neither of them is as good as Sand Hills anyway.

TH

[Gene Greco]

Jim,
Backdrops and scenery is relative and also subjective.  The golf architecture doesn't necessarily "get the blame" for them, but it does have to deal with it because it is part of it.  If for example, someone built a Burger King behind the 18th green at Sand Hills, I won't necessarily blame C&C, but unfortunately the golf architecture will suffer.

Mark:

      But there IS a "burger king" in back of the 18th green at Sand Hills and his name is Tom Simonsen, the sturdy cowboy who prepares your burger up on Ben's Porch!

Furthermore, and contrary to your theory, most who sink their teeth into one of his mouth-watering creations believe the architecture doesn't suffer, but rather is enhanced.

[Tim Bert]

OT - but mmm mmm mmm, those burgers were good.  As were the steaks.

I'm not qualified to comment on the course re:Pebble Beach because I've never played it or seen it, but I can say that the cost is the biggest factor that sends me back to Bandon every other year.  I still can't bring myself to drop more cash (nearly twice as much) on one round at Pebble than it costs me to play 54 at Bandon.  Back to the original post, the cost doesn't cetract from the architecture, but it certainly makes the option less appealing to those of us where money is a factor.

hmm... 9 rounds in 3 days at PD or 2 rounds at PB?  The choice has been easy enough for me the past few years, though I hope to get to Pebble eventually.

[Mark_Fine]

Gene,
I agree with you about those burgers (maybe only those at Olympic compare).  However, Ben's Porch is NO Burger King and let's hope it stays that way!  Maybe I should have said McDonalds and their huge golden arches     I trust you at least get my point.  
Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()