Pebble Beach No. 5 (Old and New)

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

JES II,

Then I guess you'd equate the 18th at GCGC with the two holes pictured.

# 18 at GCGC requires a heroic carry over water, bail out left, bunkers all round, trouble long.

What you and Huckaby fail to grasp is the interrelationship of the individual features, the topography and configuration of the holes, their INDIVIDUAL ARCHITECTURE, and not the yardage from tee to green.

[JESII]

Pat,

What did you do on this hole when you played it?


Also,

Can anyone post an aerial of #18 at Garden City so we can do a fair comparison of three holes I have not played...

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

I don't fail to grasp that at all.  I can see the slight differences in play, but I also see very strong similarities.  I can definitely see the huge differences in topography, which includes beauty.  Getting you to acknowledge that is one of the great victories of modern times...

 

BTW, just to throw you a bone because you're getting beaten down so badly here... another difference is one is quite likely to encounter seaside "heavy air" at CPC, whereas of course that would never happen at DV.  So the equivalent carry in raw yardage tends to play a bit longer at CPC.  I was hoping you'd mention that yourself given your vast experience at CPC, but I see we need to spoon-feed you.  So you're welcome.

 

TH

ps - you failed a little test.  Go read reply #245.
 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

The issue isn't about the play of the hole, it's about the comparison of the topography and configuration of two holes.[/b][/color]


This, from Patrick "the play is all that matters and all else is window dressing "Mucci???  [/color]

I never said that, and you know it.
For one who claims to be an honorable man, you have a tendency to misquote and misrepresent what was said.

How could you leave out the significant element of "The Architecture"  The individual features that when combined form the basis of the hole along with the topography and configuration of the hole.

In your zeal to be right, you've distorted the facts.[/color]

My my but you are a bedrock of inconsistency.[/color]  

You're the one who has now shifted his position.[/color]

Yes, it's not about the play of the hole - although that is remarkably similar.  

The issue here is the topography and configuration indeed - [/color]

That's what I've contended from the begining, why has it taken you 8 pages to reach MY conclusion ?[/color]

and the beauty that lies therein.[/color]

The beauty that lies "therein" has NEVER been an issue.
It's the beauty beyond the boundaries of the golf course that you've been touting.

Don't you remember your blacked out picture.

I've always maintained that it's what's WITHIN the golf course, the architecture, topography, features that are the critical elements.

From the begining, you've insisted that what's beyond the confines of the golf course is THE critical factor when evaluating the architecture, and the playability of the hole.
[/color]

That's why CPC 16 is great and 18 DV only difficult.[/color]  

It's better because of what's within the confines of the golf course, and not what's beyond the confines of the golf course, which is what you've maintained all along.

It's interesting how you've reversed course by 180 degrees.[/color]

Thank you for FINALLY conceding defeat.  I feel vindicated - and here people say you never admit you're wrong.[/color]

If anything, you've confirmed MY position.

You insisted that it was what was beyond the confines of the golf course that was a or THE critical factor, and now, in your own type, you finally admit that it's what's in the ground, the architecture, the features and the configuration of those features and the topography, and NOT those elements that are beyond the confines of the golf course that determine architectural merit.

The Great Houdini remains alive and well.

May I suggest that you consult with The Amazing Kreskin to help refresh your memory and your original position, which was that what lies BEYOND the confines of the golf course was vital in determining the architectural merit of a hole..[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

The only victory I will truly claim is that I got you to take the time to do that last post.  That was precious.

I was screwing with you, my friend.  Although I do think you could have made this a very short thread by just saying something to the effect of "sure they play similar but they look a lot different" about 5 pages ago.....

 

Look, it comes down to this:

The play of the two golf holes is indeed similar.  You can try to deny that as much as you want, but it's just how it is.  As for the rest, I will say with completely honesty that I didn't know you valued beauty that much at all - but I have come to a realization via this thread that such does matter to you, you just confine it to the limits of the golf course. And I do not at all think this:


From the begining, you've insisted that what's beyond the confines of the golf course is THE critical factor when evaluating the architecture, and the playability of the hole.


That's a gross mischacterization I've only corrected you on at least 100 times.  But since I was kinda screwing with you, you are forgiven.

All I maintain is that it does exist.  Your denial of its existence remains odd to me.

And in the end that - and only that - is where our difference lies.  I continue to believe that all views matter, and on this issue we will continue to battle over time I'm sure.

But this thread can indeed mercifully die, don't you think?

BTW, you still failed a little test.  Please do read reply #245, and give me your best witticism.  Do that and I shall allow you the last word.  But it better be good.

 

[Kevin_Reilly]

Tom, just send Dick Davey to South Bend to coach the Irish hoopsters.  Then you can claim victory, without qualification, over Mr. Mucci.  

{though this year they don't seem to need the coaching talents of Mr. Davey}

[Kalen Braley]

Ask and ye shall recieve.  Here is an aerial of Garden City #18.



Differences:
Biggest difference is length.  The information I could find on it lists it anywhere from 159 to 180.
While bailing out left is an option, its not maintained as fairway or presented as an option to the golfer.  And at 159 yards, I don't know why I wouldn't shoot right out at the green.
There appears to be much more room short of the green to land safely than at CPC or DV. The carry distance is likely only 140 yards or in that range.
The green can be missed way to the right, unlike CPC or DV.

Any other thoughts or observations?

[Tom Huckaby]

Kevin - great call there.  

Kalen - from that aerial, I'd concur with you re those differences.  I don't see nearly the degree of similarity to the CPC and DV holes as the latter two have to each other.  But then again, I'd surely defer to someone who has played the golf hole.

 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Ask and ye shall recieve.  Here is an aerial of Garden City #18.



Differences:
Biggest difference is length.  The information I could find on it lists it anywhere from 159 to 180.

That information is incorrect.
It's 195 from the back of the tee.

And, the hole plays into the prevailing wind, making the effective carry longer.[/color]

While bailing out left is an option, its not maintained as fairway or presented as an option to the golfer.

It's clearly presented as an option to the golfer.[/color]

And at 159 yards, I don't know why I wouldn't shoot right out at the green.

The same could be said of the forward tees at DV.
There's clearly a forced carry at # 18 at GCGC and # 16 at CPC, there is no forced carry at DV, especially from other than the back tee.[/color]

There appears to be much more room short of the green to land safely than at CPC or DV. The carry distance is likely only 140 yards or in that range.

Your distances are incorrect[/color]

The green can be missed way to the right, unlike CPC or DV.


There is no water long and right at DV, there is water long and right at GCGC and CPC.[/color]

Any other thoughts or observations?

See my comments above[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Again you fail the internal test.  But I guess if you don't read my posts, directing you in one of them to read another isn't going to be much fun.  But again I refer you to reply #245.

 

As for the rest, unlike some people, I don't care to argue details and will trust you know a hole you've played many times better than one I am viewing via aerial only.

So I ask, what's your point?  That this hole at Garden City is similar to the others we've posted in terms of play?  OK, say we accept that.  

Is it a great golf hole?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

Does it compare to CPC 16 in overall greatness?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

Let this be a lesson on how to conduct productive discussion.

 

[Kalen Braley]

Patrick,

Here is the picture of DV 18 again:



To say there is no water long and right on DV18 is absurd.  But even accepting that premise, I'm not sure how you can claim there is water long and right on GCGC.  The only thing long and right is the club house and tennis courts.

As to the yardages, while from the back of the tee its 198, how often is the tee back there?  Using that same logic its also close to 230 from the back of the tees at CPC and DV, and at DV it rarely ever plays back there, can't speak for CPC.

As to no forced carries at DV, sure if you wedge it 50 yards there are none, but the same is true at GCGC.  Even at CPC you could have no forced carries if you wanted to play out to the left of the tee box and wedge it around.

You efforts and arguments fell way short on that one.  I would have expected more from the great Houdini  

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen - it's also pretty absurd to say:


There's clearly a forced carry at # 18 at GCGC and # 16 at CPC, there is no forced carry at DV, especially from other than the back tee.


That's so wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin to attack it.  

But don't fall into his trap... arguing the details of all of this is what he wants... make him answer the bigger picture questions.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

In case you've forgotten your original position, I've reposted it for you.[/color]


Site is location specific.
Sight extends to the horizon.
I've always evaluated golf courses based on what's INSIDE the property line[/color]

So let's get back to brass tacks.  Feel free to base this on boundaries of the golf course, as you always have.

When judging the qualities of the architecture of a golf course, you can't include factors beyond the property line.[/color]

But if that is your take, then I challenge you:  go back to the picture I posted of #6 PB (reply 26, page 1 of this thread).



Is that not how you see the hole? Is not the part not blacked out all that matters to you?  If you do base things on the boundaries of the golf course, then does not the ocean next to PB fails to exist at all as you see things?

The absurdity of your efforts is remarkable.

The cliffs are an integral part of the hole, the golf course.
They form the topography that shapes the hole and defines its boundaries.   As to the ocean, tell me how much of it you see when hitting your 2nd shot ?  Once you leave the tee the ocean behind the green is invisible until you come close to reaching the green.  It's a non-entity.  Is it a more pleasing backdrop than bombed out buildings ?  Certainly, but, when removed from play it's not a factor in terms of the architecture or the play of the hole.[/color]

And if the answer to each of these questions is yes - which is necessarily must be unless given your insistence that things outside the boundary of the golf course don't matter - then you disagree with me, Adam, and Tom Doak, as maximizing beauty means nothing to you - simply because that blacked-out part doesn't exist!  It's outside the boundaries of the course after all.  

NO, they're not.
The cliffs define the land the hole sits on, they form the margins of play.  Tell me you understand that.

Your blacked out example is irrelevant unless you're playing at midnight.

By the way, how do you maximize beauty on property outside of the golf course ?[/color]

And once again, as I've corrected you at least 50 times, the blackened out part is not the FOCUS - no, the non-blackened part is obviously the meat and potatoes of the thing - but to say the blackened part doesn't matter at all - as you do yet again here  - is where you remain oh so wrong.

NO, you're wrong because you don't understand what constitues the boundaries of the hole, golf course or property.
When golfers hit their recovery shots from the beach, they do so because their ball is in play, in a hazard, that's an integral part of the golf course.

If it wasn't part of the golf course it would be [size=8x]O.B.[/size]

Please, tell me that you understand the concept of what constitutes the boundaries of a golf course, what's in play, and what's removed from play.

Then, go back and edit the absurd blacked out picture you posted to reflect what's in play, what's an integral part of the golf course.

But wrong is a strong term.  Let's just say you disagree with Doak and dare I say anyone else who's ever designed a golf course, as well as the vast majority of golfers.

So, disagreeing with Doak implies errors in thinking ?

How would you relate that to the 7th and 12th hole at GCGC ?

While I respect Tom's views, infallibility has yet to be confered
And, I don't think my views and Tom Doak's views are that far apart, once YOU understand the issue.[/color]

You're gonna need to be Houdini again to get out of this one.  Cut your losses.  Just ask me not to doubt the great Houdini... I'll accept that with a smile.  Anything other than this, well...

This is child's play for the Great Houdini.

Do you understand that the cliffs and beach are an integral part of the golf course at Pebble Beach, whereas, the land beyond the boundaries at Sand Hills is OUT-OF-BOUNDS and not an integral part of the golf course ?

Do you understand the difference ?[/color]

The world awaits, my magician friend.

PRESTO ![/color]

[James Bennett]

Sully:  of course you can see that, and I can see that, and Kalen can see that, and Kevin can see that, and anyone with half a brain can see that.... and it's especially evident when one plays each golf hole....

Tom

so, If Patrick Mucci had half of his brain removed, THEN he would agree with you?  Is that what you are saying?  Have you spoken to Tom Paul about vacancies at Happydale Farms?    Of course, Patrick may well be 'the man with two brains', so removing half of his brains would still not result in him agreeing with you.  

PS  this was not a reference to the HamiltonBHearst thread.  Someone on GCA may have two identities, and so perhaps two brains!


James B

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Well, that was one question I asked.  I've asked lots of others that you've artfully dodged.  But do you REALLY want to go back to the beginning and start all over?  Wow... aren't you a bit tired of this by now?

Sigh... as I corrected you when you first posted that, my artistic efforts were a bit weak, also limited by two dimensions.  Of course everything in play counts in your world.  What that picture meant to show is what doesn't count as you see things.  Given you continually make the distinction between on course and off course, I thought that artistic effort was actually pretty good.  

But it comes back to the following.  


I will say with completely honesty that I didn't know you valued beauty that much at all - but I have come to a realization via this thread that such does matter to you, you just confine it to the limits of the golf course.   And although you continually mischaracterize me, I do not at all "focus" on extra-course beauty; all I maintain is that it does exist.  Your denial of its existence remains odd to me.

And in the end that - and only that - is where our difference lies.  I continue to believe that all views matter, and on this issue we will continue to battle over time I'm sure.


Do you seriously disagree with any of that?

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Sully:  of course you can see that, and I can see that, and Kalen can see that, and Kevin can see that, and anyone with half a brain can see that.... and it's especially evident when one plays each golf hole....

Tom

so, If Patrick Mucci had half of his brain removed, THEN he would agree with you?  Is that what you are saying?  Have you spoken to Tom Paul about vacancies at Happydale Farms?    Of course, Patrick may well be 'the man with two brains', so removing half of his brains would still not result in him agreeing with you.  

PS  this was not a reference to the HamiltonBHearst thread.  Someone on GCA may have two identities, and so perhaps two brains!


James B

James:  my bad.  Insert the words "at least" before the words "half a brain."

 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom Huckaby,

Why do you think that Donald Trump, Fazio and others place waterfalls and other unique features on their golf course ?

And, why do you think that those features have been at the center of massive criticism.

Aren't Trump and Fazio just trying to do your bidding ?
To beautify the golf course ?

What about the almost universal criticism on this site of
"eye candy" ?

Isn't that just an attempt to beautify the golf course ?

Wasn't Shadow Creek vilified on this site for creating a beautiful setting in the midst of an arid desert flash flood plain ?

My view on evaluating the architecture lies in the ground with the features, their presentation to the golfer, their relationship to one another, and, how they affect playability of the hole.

What lies outside the boundaries of the golf course is mere window dressing, determined by the luck of the draw with respect to the site.

What lies outside of the boundaries of a golf course can't be ignored unless one is blind, but, it shouldn't be a factor in determining the architectural merits of a golf hole or golf course.

If you want to elevate the "WOW" factor, especially if it's off site, to a rating category, that's your perogative.  I prefer to evaluate a golf course based upon how the internal architecture presents itself and interfaces with my play.

James Bennett,

I find that when debating architectural issues with Tom Huckaby or TEPaul, that I only need one tenth of my brain, so half of my brain is more than adequate to dispatch those Master Debaters.

The Great Houdini lives.

[Tom Huckaby]

The Great Houdini lives indeed.

That was well stated (questioned?).  

The only thing I would disagree with is this:  I don't think external views are entirely accidental or the luck of the draw.  When asked about this, Tom Doak did indeed say that maximizing views are part of what he tries to do in design.  So yes it is the luck of the draw that views are available or not (although I would also say that sites that allow for views are most definitely sought out, rather than lucked into), but it's not wholly accidental when they are maximized.

In the end, what's become clear is that we agree on all of this far more than we disagree, and I hope that doesn't pain you too much.

Because as many times as you mischaracterize my position, I have never overemphasized, focused on, or otherwise put all value on external views.  And I would wholly agree that overemphasis on creation of artificial external course features - like the ones you cite - is not a good thing and should be criticized.  But while I don't put any strong emphasis on exernal views, I also can't deny any role for them, as you seem to have done in the past.  Heck, you just cited such as a potential negative, so obviously you do see that they have a role.  I supposed our one and only real difference is I see them as perhaps allowing for more positive than you do.  As my friend Ryan Simper says, there is value in enjoying one's time between shots, and external views can add to that enjoyment without a doubt.

So perhaps our debates on this will have less sting from this point forward... I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.

 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom Huckaby,

Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes reside on a similar site, yet, the use of the Pacific Ocean differs in some ways.

Do you really believe that those who evaluate golf courses and architecture analyze the use of the views of the Pacific Ocean on those two golf courses ?

I'll bet that there's not one person in 10,000 that tries to analyze that aspect of the architecture.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Huckaby,

Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes reside on a similar site, yet, the use of the Pacific Ocean differs in some ways.

Do you really believe that those who evaluate golf courses and architecture analyze the use of the views of the Pacific Ocean on those two golf courses ?

I'll bet that there's not one person in 10,000 that tries to analyze that aspect of the architecture.

Agreed, although 10,000 might be stretching it.

But I also doubt there's one golfer in 10,000 that fails to notice the views.  And I don't think that's exaggerated.  And at least relative to other places, they're really not all that great.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom Huckaby,

To most, the view is a monolithic backdrop.

There's nothing inherently unique about one view versus others.

A ship at sea has great ocean views, but, after the first five minutes, the view becomes a blur, a monotonous panorama.

The same can apply to golf course views of the ocean.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

That might be true for some people - that's why I said none of the views there were particularly great, at least relative to some other places.   But others would never tire of the views, shifting their angles, looking out to sea, along the beach, etc.  In any case to say these views have ZERO role, that I'll never get - and in the end I don't think that's what you're saying.  You just minimize the role of such extra-course views, whereas I might give them a bit greater weight.

But it comes down to this.  I was doing a little light reading and came across this from Graves & Cornish's Classic Golf Hole Design, a wonderful book that describes classic golf holes and gives examples of them, both older and modern.  Here are what the authors say at least tangentially on this subject:


When describing classics, we are not necessarily including all the spectacular holes that abound on the world's golf courses.  Sometimes these holes (classics or otherwise) owe their fame, in part at least, to their striking surroundings, for example, the Devil's Cauldron at Banff Springs in the Canadian Rockies, designed by architect Stanley Thompson, or the 16th at Cypress Point on the Monterey Peninsula in California,[/b] designed by architect Alister Mackenzie.  These holes are also indebted to their architects for capturing the grandeur in their compositions.[/b]  On the other hand, many golf holes in less striking surroundings are also famous and owe their magic almost entirely to the talent of those who created them.

Page 195

That in a nutshell is the point I've been trying to make to you.  It's not that scenic views are required, or are to be focused on, or anything like that.  It's just that when they are available, the good designer maximizes them - as Thompson did at Banff Springs and Mackenzie did at Cypress Point.  And I see no distinction between on-course and off-course, as Cornish and Whitten surely don't - proven by their use of the Banff Springs example, where the incredible views are surely the mountains behind the golf hole.

That's it, really.  There's no huge emphasis on it, just an acknowledgment that when great views exist, they are part of the equation.  When they don't exist, a hole still can be great for sure - it just won't have this added "bonus" so to speak.

Which I believe in the end you'd agree with, no?  How much value we each give to this "bonus" might be where our differences lie - and in the end I don't think we're nearly that far apart on that aspect as our lengthy battles would imply.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

I thought I would bump this epic thread....

For some of the newer guys on GCA.com, this was the 1st "epic" thread I was exposed to when coming on.

[JMEvensky]

I thought I would bump this epic thread....

For some of the newer guys on GCA.com, this was the 1st "epic" thread I was exposed to when coming on.

Great find,Kalen.What a good thread.

Huckaby is sorely missed.

[Kalen Braley]

I thought I would bump this epic thread....

For some of the newer guys on GCA.com, this was the 1st "epic" thread I was exposed to when coming on.

Great find,Kalen.What a good thread.

Huckaby is sorely missed.

Couldn't agree more JM,

Huckaby was always a voice of reason on GCA.com!!  I wish he would start posting again too!!