Pebble Beach?

[Dean Stokes]

First off, I've never been there. That is why I wish to hear some views from people on this site that know what they are talking about.
We know it is always high up in the golf course rankings. I have heard it said that apart fom the holes on the water the rest of the course is very average.
My question is - how good is Pebble Beach as far as golf course architecture is? Forget the views, the rankings and the tournaments held there. If this was a no name course that you happened to play - how good would you say it was?

[Adam Clayman]

As with many old courses, so many hands have had a crack at disfigurement. The most recent
Nips and Tucks leave much to be desired. i.e. The new 'shivas' bunkers on #15. They're dreadful. Today's telecast showed just how much those left side bunkers are built up against the flow of the property. Similar to recent work at Riviera, I wonder who did them? On the bright side, the majority of the great stuff is still there. Even on what many consider to be weak holes.

[Andy Troeger]

Dean,
Now that the search function works you can also search the archives, this has been discussed before and there have been some pretty interesting discussions.

I agree with the Tom Huckaby school of thinking...you can't "forget the views." Especially on holes like where the "view" is very much in play! Part of the architecture in my mind is incorporating what you've got to work with in regards to land. Aesthetics should be the most important concern but its worth inclusion.

Others will disagree but I think the architecture more than holds its own. The greens are small and sloped and the inland holes, save #15 which I didn't really care for, are good in their own right. Holes like #3, and 14 especially are impressive although they get overshadowed by the ocean holes being spectacular.

I'll be very fortunate indeed if Pebble ever gets bumped from my personal top five.

[Dean Stokes]

Dean,
Now that the search function works you can also search the archives, this has been discussed before and there have been some pretty interesting discussions.

I agree with the Tom Huckaby school of thinking...you can't "forget the views." Especially on holes like where the "view" is very much in play! Part of the architecture in my mind is incorporating what you've got to work with in regards to land. Aesthetics should be the most important concern but its worth inclusion.

Others will disagree but I think the architecture more than holds its own. The greens are small and sloped and the inland holes, save #15 which I didn't really care for, are good in their own right. Holes like #3, and 14 especially are impressive although they get overshadowed by the ocean holes being spectacular.

I'll be very fortunate indeed if Pebble ever gets bumped from my personal top five.

I do agree that you cannot forget the views. If #18 was treelined on the left it would not be the same hole. I guess I'm more interested in the holes that we rarely see. Is there some elevation change? Are they scenic? ARE THEY GOOD HOLES?

[Andy Troeger]

Despite everything else the thing I don't understand is why CBS only shows coverage of the last 7 holes. It would be much more interesting to see pros and even the celebs try to tackle #4-10. I really thought the new #5 was a heck of a hole, and #3 with the diagonal hazards off the tee is a great hole too.

Not every hole at Pebble is wonderful, but none are bad (even #15) and most of the inland holes are above average. #13 has a fair amount of strategy for example seeing that the tee shot makes the right side look pretty open, but the slope of the green makes it a pretty real advantage to be on the left side of the fairway.

[Dean Stokes]

I did think more GCA members would have played Pebble and have a view. Maybe they don't want to share their view!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Adam Clayman]

YES!

They are demanding, with plenty of Fwy movement, forced carries, deep bunkers, barancas and cliffs. An understanding of specific tendencies (local knowledge) through repeated exposure only enhances one's appreciation.
 As Andy noted, the greens are small, most are well guarded requiring strategic management, with lots of movement.

Andy, The old fifth was one of the most demanding holes. Sadly, it's successor is hardly a pimple on it's old rump.  

Dean, Weekends is hardly a time to judge response time on a new thread.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Dean, it has been a number of years since I have played Pebble.  A lot of folks, because of the TV exposure,  have built the course up some much in their minds that it could never live up to expectations.  It has some holes that can stand up to any in the world.  The most notable is the stretch from six through 10.  The course begins well but not great.  The finishing holes from 14 on are superb.  15 does not get the credit it deserves.  The second shot is crucial.  Be on the wrong side of the hole and it is death. 
I'm not sure it is a top ten course but it sure is a wonderful track and I could play it day after day and never tire of it.

[Dean Stokes]

YES!

They are demanding, with plenty of Fwy movement, forced carries, deep bunkers, barancas and cliffs. An understanding of specific tendencies (local knowledge) through repeated exposure only enhances one's appreciation.
 As Andy noted, the greens are small, most are well guarded requiring strategic management, with lots of movement.

Andy, The old fifth was one of the most demanding holes. Sadly, it's successor is hardly a pimple on it's old rump.  

Dean, Weekends is hardly a time to judge response time on a new thread.

Adam, I appreciate your replies. I'm sat here with a glass of red and thought it was a great time to add a new topic. I now realize it is not. Thankyou.

[Stan Dodd]

I agree with Adam in that some of the changes are ?  But Pebble is a true Championship test worthy of its accolades.
It tests you at every turn.
And it is fun!
I appreciate it more with every play.

[David Stamm]

Frankly, I get sick of the PB bashing that some give this great course. Let's forget the holes on the ocean for the moment. 3 is a good medium par 4 with some choices to be made off the tee. 13 is a solid hole with a MacKenzie green and 14 is one of the best true 3 shot par 5's I've played. 16 has a wondeful feel with some neat fw movement and a cool greensite. I agree with Adam's assesment of the 15th's new bunkers. I don't like them either. Is the 1st a weak opener? Yes. But I think PB has more great holes than ALMOST any course in the country. I wish the bunkers were more like the way Egan had done them and I think it's a little too "prettied" up overall, but PB is more than worthy of it's rep.

[Steve Kline]

Dean - I've played Pebble a couple of times. Here are some things that stood at to me that you won't pick up watching the tournament on TV:

1. The ocean stretch of holes (4-10) are even more stunning than you could imagine from TV. Despite all the hype for 8 and 9, I think 6 and 7 were my favorites. There just isn't anything but greatness in those holes in my opinion.

2. The course is compact. After watching on TV I had no idea how close some of the tees and greens were.

3. The first hole is downright claustrophobic with buildings lining the tee shot and all the commotion going on around the tee. I found it a very uninspiring start to the course.

4. How many homes, er mansions, are on the course. You rarely see these on TV but many holes on the back nine have a row of houses down the right side. They aren't in play, but I just didn't expect it.

5. I always that 12 was a slightly uphill par 3 watching on TV. Then I found it was slightly downhill when playing it.

6. I understand why the pros complain about the greens. The 2nd was horrendous when we played it.

7. I don't care for the new look of the bunkers. It made me think of Bay Hill and most other Palmer courses I've played. The style didn't seem to fit with the surroundings.

8. The inland holes are better than many people give them credit for. I liked 11, 12, and 14 the best.

[Ed Oden]

David, well stated!  I entirely agree with your assessment.  The only average holes are 1, 2 and 15.  All of the other inland holes are superb.  While I may not love all of the changes over the years, don't forget that those changes include the new 5th, which is vastly superior to the old hole.  And, as others have stated, you can't forget the views.

Ed

[Tom_Doak]

David Stamm:

You only analyzed half the inland holes at Pebble.  Permit me to cover them all:

1 - ugh
2 - not much better
3 - agree with your description
11 - ugh
12 - yuck
13 - good hole as you say
14 - very good third-shot par 5 (and I guess you've got to hit two reasonable shots to set it up, but that's about all)
15 - fair, haven't seen changes
16 - neat green setting but funky tee shot

I would have to agree with you that the nine oceanside holes are nearly all world-class holes, and when you throw in #14, that's more than most courses have.  But how many of the top twenty courses get by with as many "ugh" holes as I listed above?  If we'd built any of those at Pacific Dunes I'd never hear the end of it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pebble Beach is a wonderful golf course, from start to finish.

Although, I'm not crazy about the checkerboard fairway mowing patterns.

They seem "made for TV"

I wonder how many clubs will adopt them this season ?

[Andy Troeger]

David Stamm:

You only analyzed half the inland holes at Pebble.  Permit me to cover them all:

1 - ugh
2 - not much better
3 - agree with your description
11 - ugh
12 - yuck
13 - good hole as you say
14 - very good third-shot par 5 (and I guess you've got to hit two reasonable shots to set it up, but that's about all)
15 - fair, haven't seen changes
16 - neat green setting but funky tee shot

I would have to agree with you that the nine oceanside holes are nearly all world-class holes, and when you throw in #14, that's more than most courses have.  But how many of the top twenty courses get by with as many "ugh" holes as I listed above?  If we'd built any of those at Pacific Dunes I'd never hear the end of it.

Tom,
With all due respect, just because you think they are "ugh" holes doesn't mean everyone has to agree    I do agree that #1 isn't anything special, thankfully you get it over with early.

To anyone who cares to answer, what's wrong with #11, other than that something had to come after #6-10 and it got unlucky. The green creates some interest and its LONG for an under 400 par four.

[Joe Bentham]

Two things struck me about Pebble the first time I saw it.  First was the scale of the place, it felt small to me.  Not sure I can explain myself much better then that, other then it didn't fit the picture I had in my mind.  Second was the amount of non-golf traffic on the place, which IMO took away from the golf experience.  I would also have to say, for its reputation, it has more then its share of very pedestrian holes.

[David Stamm]

Two things struck me about Pebble the first time I saw it.  First was the scale of the place, it felt small to me.  Not sure I can explain myself much better then that, other then it didn't fit the picture I had in my mind.  Second was the amount of non-golf traffic on the place, which IMO took away from the golf experience.  I would also have to say, for its reputation, it has more then its share of very pedestrian holes.

Wow, Joe. Small?? I think PB'e scale is quite large, IMO. I love looking at it from the beach in Carmel to the South. It's looks vast. As far as pedestrian holes, compared to what? How many are there really? 1, 2, 12 and 15. Perhaps 11. How many courses do you know of that can claim that many good/great holes?

[Jim Nugent]

As far as pedestrian holes, compared to what? How many are there really? 1, 2, 12 and 15. Perhaps 11. How many courses do you know of that can claim that many good/great holes?

Yet I've read lots of people on this website say 6 or more holes are pedestrian or worse.  One of golf's greatest architects just told us at least four holes suck. 

So the alternate question might be, can a course be considered all-universe, when it has that many ugly/yucky holes? 

[Gerry B]

never understood its lofty rankings.

The great holes are as good as it gets / the mediocre holes are just that -  mediocre. As previously mentioned - I liked the old 5th much better than the new 5th.

I often enjoy doing a hole by hole head to head pseudo matchplay when comparing courses. Makes for great debate over a beverage after a round of golf.

If one were to try this exercise -IE.  PB vs CPC as an example  - I would be interested in seeing the results from those who have played both. Ditto for Pine Valley vs Merion East  and Oakmont vs Merion East.

[Andrew Summerell]

A lot of folks, because of the TV exposure,  have built the course up some much in their minds that it could never live up to expectations. 

This is probably what I suffered from.

I’ve only played the course once & coming from Australia, probably won’t play it again. I enjoyed my day there, but was quite underwhelmed compared to other World Top 10 courses I’ve played. Obviously, if I had more rounds there I may come to understand it more. Of course, it’s just my personal opinion, as I know many love it.

[Ray Richard]

Standing on tee #7 is the second best feeling in life. knocking a wedge within 6 feet may be the best.

[Adrian_Stiff]

PB in my opinion has a few 10/10 holes and a fair few average holes.
My take is and I only played it once.
1. 5/10, average resorty hole
2. 7/10, old fashion type of hole, nice cross bunkering
3. 6/10, average sort of hole, cant remember much interesting
4. 8/10, short 4 with a tricky green, first hole that has the cliffs and views
5. 5/10, dull par 3 (old hole) new one looks miles better
6. 7/10, blind second up over the hill, not a great hole views nice to the right
7. 10/10, awesome
8. 10/10, awesome
9. 9.5/10, great views
10. 9.5/10, great views
11. 6/10, resorty hole
12. 6/10, resorty hole
13. 7/10, nice hole with inviting tee shot and green approach
14. 6/10, I dont like this hole everything tilts the wrong way and the approach is too difficult to keep on the green
15. 6/10, ok sort of hole
16. 7/10, nice green setting
17. 6/10, very dissapointing, everything was level the view from the tee was of sky.
18/ 10/10 awesome
Overall it has enought spectacular holes to warrant as a must play, take those away and its not a top 200 course. I cant see any great architectural merit its more about the setting (which as someone pointed out..counts)

[wsmorrison]

David Stamm:

You only analyzed half the inland holes at Pebble.  Permit me to cover them all:

1 - ugh
2 - not much better
3 - agree with your description
11 - ugh
12 - yuck
13 - good hole as you say
14 - very good third-shot par 5 (and I guess you've got to hit two reasonable shots to set it up, but that's about all)
15 - fair, haven't seen changes
16 - neat green setting but funky tee shot

I would have to agree with you that the nine oceanside holes are nearly all world-class holes, and when you throw in #14, that's more than most courses have.  But how many of the top twenty courses get by with as many "ugh" holes as I listed above?  If we'd built any of those at Pacific Dunes I'd never hear the end of it.

Andy, I for one completely agree with Tom Doak's assessment.  I haven't played Pebble Beach since the 5th hole was changed, so I'd be curious to hear how other people view compare/contrast the before and after.   However, there are simply too many mundane holes on that golf course to sustain its lofty status in golf.  It is a very special golf course but one that cannot be regarded in the same way as courses without a single mediocre hole, let alone the number that exists at Pebble Beach.  Subjectively, the great holes, and there are some all-worlds, elevate the course in some people's minds to one of the world's best courses.  I don't think you can overcome so many mediocre holes.  I'll take a stab at a 1-10 rating on each hole.

1.  3/10  Is the green significantly smaller at the rear than originally designed?  Less than mediocre
2.  5/10  A nice cross bunker that doesn't come into play very much, it would be better if fairway extended  from the green to the cross bunker.  Mediocre
3.  8/10  I really like this hole on the tee shot, approach and the green
4.  6/10  Excellent bunkering, easy tee shot
5.  No idea.  Original was a mediocre 5/10
6.  8/10  I thought it was a par 4 when I played it (I didn't have a scorecard and the caddy walked forward) and here is where I realized the psychology of par and how it influences my playing of the hole
7.  10/10
8.  9/10  The tee shot is not good enough for this hole to be a 10/10 though the approach is an 11/10
9.  9/10  An excellent long par 4 with wind
10.  7/10  Another straightaway par 4 deducts points.  I don't remember what the parking lot is for, but I'd get rid of it and move the tee to the left and change the angle. 
11.  5/10  A tee to the right would make a more interesting line of play decision.  Mediocre
12.  5/10  Mediocre
13.  6/10  Not very inspiring
14.  7/10  A very interesting green, but unfortunately, only the approach shot is interesting other than putts
15.  5/10  Mediocre, I like the tee shot through the bushes
16.  8/10  I like the tee shot and I really like the approach.  The green could have been more interesting
17.  6/10  I'd put the green closer to the water, nearer to the back tee on 18 and I'd get rid of that pinched hourglass design.  Build some mounds and create a little visual interest and the road is annoying when looking out on the ocean.
18.  8/10  Spawned way too many of the same sort of finishing hole concepts.  If you could move the 17th green closer to the water, I'd move the tees on 18 and make it a long par 4.  For the best players, it is too easy a par finish.  The only time it really gets interesting is if they need a birdie.

[Jeff Tang]

I've played Pebble once and really liked it overall.  I would agree mostly with the assessments already posted about inland holes versus the ocean side holes.

When I came to #17 I was surprised and disappointed that you really couldn't see the water better from tee.  One of the earlier posts mentioned how flat the hole looks and I would agree with that.  I was expecting a much more dramatic looking hole from the tee but that wasn't the impression I got.  My question is can anything be done to that tee / green to make the hole look different from the tee without making the hole look contrived / artificial?  It would be great to be able to see the water behind the green from the tee which from my recollection you really can't see currently.