Pebble Beach?

[Andy Troeger]

Tom,
I commend you for putting up a fight. I long since gave up myself!

It would appear that Pebble is not hurting for business nor are they hurting with the rankings or in any other popularity contest outside the world of GCA. The course isn't perfect, but GCA is not a perfect science anyway.

One thing I've noticed personally; there is a HUGE difference to me in playing courses where the holes in some sense interact with the ocean/large lake as they do at Pebble versus just having the ocean as a backdrop or next door attraction (Arcadia Bluffs, Whistling Straits, Spanish Bay). Not that its not cool to have as a feature no matter what, but there's a big difference there to me.

#4-10 at Pebble is as good as it gets, whether not everyone likes the rest of the golf course 

[Tom Huckaby]

I agree Tom.  Perhaps on that hole my negatives outweigh the postives and vice-versa for you.  That's cool.  As a matter of interest, on an individual hole basis how would you rate PB #1 vs Bandon Dunes #1.  Similar holes.  How would you weigh the positives and negatives of each?  How would it net out?

Bryan - interesting question, as they are similar holes.  Both have a negative of obtrusive buildings on one side (note I don't see the lodge as any big deal right of 1PB - the huge trees block the "buildings"), although BD's are on the right, which to me is worse.  But one also can play far away safely to the left and the feel is indeed a lot more open, so it's no big deal - score this in favor of BD.  There is also no safe play other than straight and short at 1PB.  1 BD also has a little bit more doable risk/reward... that is, one can take a crack at getting close to the green with a bit less dire penalty, and a bit wider target, than the same effort at PB.  Green site and surrounds are pretty cool and heroic as raised as they are at BD (and with the giant bunker), green itself is a lot smaller, a lot more subtle, a lot harder to figure out at PB.  To me this is pretty close... neither is a great hole, but neither also is a bad hole.  PB also has the aura/history/coolness (which I know you don't want to count, but I do - more on that later) that BD will likely never have.  Man add all this up and it could go either way... I don't have a strong feeling either way.  Call it a tie, maybe a slight overall nod to BD.

Now as for:

The PB mystique is at least in part based on the views on half the course and by the "major" and even clambake history.  Since PD, for example, will never have a US Open or probably a clambake type of thing, it will never be as "good" as PB.  In ratings it's unlikely that we'll ever divorce history and location from the assessment.  That doesn't mean that indivdual holes at higher rated courses are always good or better compared to comparable holes on lower rated courses.

Yep, that's the issue in a nutshell.  I do quite firmly believe that these things matter, and so yes, new courses are always going to be rather behind the 8-ball when compared to these historic greats.  But given so many golfers (dare I say the vast majority) feel these things when playing these historic greats, I say they matter.  Many here disagree, quite vehemently.  But we've covered it all before.  Vive l'difference.

[Steve Kline]

Here are my thoughts on how PB ranks comapred to other courses.

I only played Pebble because I was invited by a vendor on all expenses paid trip. We played the course twice as well as Spyglass and Spanish Bay. The trip was awesome and our rounds at Pebble were extremely cool. The ocean holes were spectacular.

I played Pine Valley a few years at the invitations of our 401k provider. 45 holes, two nights, and the most unbelievable golf experience of my life.

I played Cruden Bay a couple of years. 36 holes in one day. I thought the place was awesome.

The only way I'd ever go back to PB is by the invitation of the previously mentioned vendor. It was fun, but no way would I pay that out of my own pocket. I would give virtually anything to get back to PV. And, I'll gladly pay my way to play Cruden Bay again.

That's a good way to look at it, Steve.

But picture this:  you're first group off Pebble on an uncrowded day (caused by rains the day before, mucho cancellations).  It's a crisp 60 degree morning, light wind, enough to effect some shots but not enough to get things crazy.  It's you and your Dad, and you basically have the course to yourselves.  You play unhurriedly in a little over 3.5 hours. 

Would that change your mind about how to value the experience?

I'd pay anything to do that again.  Of course it's not reality.  But then neither is playing Pine Valley, for a guy like me.  And I have been to Cruden Bay twice, absolutely love it.  But make things a bit more equal in terms of experience (ie eliminate the crowds), and well... I'd split 10 rounds between PB and CB about 7-3 in favor of the former.

TH

The rains the day before would be one more reason to choose Cruden Bay - it would have the firm and fast conditions I love most. I don't remember the pace of play being that bad when I played PB. Maybe because I heard so much about 6 hour rounds and prepared myself for it that anything less than that seemed fine. The crowds didn't have anything to do with it for me. And I had great playing companions for one of the rounds with a very competitive match.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Re the 2nd, the back edge of the back tee is about 65 yards back from the centre of the 1st green.  From way back there the hole is 493 yards (427 from the tee next to the 1st green).  In either case a marginal length for a par 5, even in persimmon and balata days, if you're playing from the right tees.  The carry over the "crossing" bunker is around 200 yards.  The last bunker on the right is 280 yards to carry although you'd come pretty close to nipping the buildings by the tee to take a line down the right hand bunkers.   The fairway is a pretty generous 40 yards wide.  There's no strategic advantage to being to the left or right side of the fairway.  To carry the barranca is only 450 to the beginning of the fairway in front of the green.  The tiny green, as do all the greens at PB, provides the challenge in the hole.

Thanks for the info.

If I recall correctly, fog and heavy ocean air seem to be the order of the day at PB, along with  some good breezes, so why is a hole with not one, but two demand carries dismissed so readily ?

Forget the PGA Tour Pros, they're in another world.
View the hole in the context of the thousands that play it every year, from the zero to the 36 handicap.

This is a terrific hole at 493.

How many have played it from the back of the back tee and had to contend with the two choices ?

And, as Huck said, approaching the green, or recovering to the green is no bargain.

And, the putting surface remains a challenge.

So, how is this an "ugh" hole.

And, for those declaring such, what is your handicap ?

Like the par 5's at ANGC, this is a terrific hole that presents several dilemas and choices.

It's anything but bland.

It's very interesting unless your interest is only held by holes with an ocean view.

[Andy Troeger]

From the back tees on #2 I hit what I thought was a very good drive, and it went about 250 and left with me with 245 left to the green and nothing to do but lay-up. On #18 I hit 3 iron from 195 and smoked it...to the front fringe. That's 30 yards off the drive and 20 yards off the iron from a normal distance for me (at a normal elevation...the ball does go farther than that in NM).

Yardage at Pebble is just a number, the ball doesn't go anywhere. There is as much difference for me between Indiana and the Monterey Peninsula as there is between Indiana and the mountain elevations in NM and Colorado.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I'm going to make a convert out of you in 2008.

For those that say it's the ocean that makes PB, they have no architectural eye.

Each of the holes are terrific in their own right.
# 6, # 7, # 8, # 9 and # 10 would be spectacular in any setting.
# 2, # 3, # 4 and # 5 are solid holes.

As to # 11, it's a terrific hole.
Of those critical of the hole, I wonder how many times they played it.

And, I'd venture to say that many who give holes 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 fair marks, do so solely on the basis that those holes don't have the prime ocean views.

Their analytic eye gets distracted by the surroundings, not the immediate playing surfaces and architectural features that they must interface with.

So, come over to the dark side and dismiss the window dressing and embrace the architectural substance of the holes.

Pebble Beach is a WORLD class golf course that happens to be adjacent to the Pacific Ocean.

[paul cowley]

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,33250.0.html

I am presuming that the original green side tree existed when they built #18 at PB  and people are pointing out how it adds to the strategy of the hole and that it had to be replaced because the hole just wouldn't look right without it.  Well here's another hole where they left a tree and nearly everyone hated it.  It certainly adds to the strategy of the hole and there are trees and not houses or hotels in the area. I presume that the tree was left at #18 to force you to play toward the water in order not to be blocked by the tree - where have I heard a disliking of that before?

Are we taking a more lenient view because it is #18 at Pebble? 

Jerry et al....the new tree I feel is an attempt to replicate the original group of five to seven or more mature pines that were in a loose group to the right of #18.....probably there when the course was built. I know this because I was involved with their care taking in the 70's.

I have watched them on TV decline over the ensuing years...as well as the pines that were in the right side of the drives landing area ....and I have noted their replacements.

Replacing the pines at 18 with a large cypress was a stretch....or a sales and marketing promo.

[David Ober]

Tom Huckaby,

I'm going to make a convert out of you in 2008.

For those that say it's the ocean that makes PB, they have no architectural eye.

Each of the holes are terrific in their own right.
# 6, # 7, # 8, # 9 and # 10 would be spectacular in any setting.
# 2, # 3, # 4 and # 5 are solid holes.

As to # 11, it's a terrific hole.
Of those critical of the hole, I wonder how many times they played it.

And, I'd venture to say that many who give holes 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 fair marks, do so solely on the basis that those holes don't have the prime ocean views.

Their analytic eye gets distracted by the surroundings, not the immediate playing surfaces and architectural features that they must interface with.

So, come over to the dark side and dismiss the window dressing and embrace the architectural substance of the holes.

Pebble Beach is a WORLD class golf course that happens to be adjacent to the Pacific Ocean.

100% agreement with you, Patrick. Unfortunately, I've only played Pebble three times, but will endeavor to make the trip at least once a year until I'm no longer able to break 80 with some regularity. The course is just phenomenal in my opinion.

And fourteen may be the best par 5 I've ever played.  Did you see what it did to the pros on Sunday? That left pin placement is just diabolical!

[Adam Clayman]

David, If you thought that pin was diabolical, you have to ask yourself why they didn't move it to the right side of the green. Afterall. they had to keep the pin position to the left for the first three days. The reason why they did not move it to the right... It's even more diabolical. With greenspeeds at 10+ it would've been impossible, or even, as has been described in the past...unfair.

Patrick's analysis is spot on, which is much better than this pontification of faux analysis

However, when it lays down and goes to sleep the net result is a number of holes that would induce a long term coma.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

I agree with your assessment of BD #1 and PB #1 and even your conclusion.  To me BD is just one example of probably many opening holes that would in my mind be the equal or superior to PB #1. 

I guess we can't call BD a muni though, huh.    

And, don't include me in the supposed camp of PB bashers.  I think it's a top tier course.  I'm not a great believer in trying to rank courses on a precise ordinal scale.  It's impossible.  So, it's among the finest courses in the world.  Are there other places I'd like to play better?  Sure.  And, price is certainly a large reason why. 

I'm also not averse to considering the setting in determining how i feel about a course.  PD and PB are both spectacular settings for golf.  Is one a better setting than the other?  Je ne sais quoi.  But I do prefer Teeth of the Dog's routing for incorporating the ocean into the course than either of those two.

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

Re the 2nd, the back edge of the back tee is about 65 yards back from the centre of the 1st green.  From way back there the hole is 493 yards (427 from the tee next to the 1st green).  In either case a marginal length for a par 5, even in persimmon and balata days, if you're playing from the right tees.  The carry over the "crossing" bunker is around 200 yards.  The last bunker on the right is 280 yards to carry although you'd come pretty close to nipping the buildings by the tee to take a line down the right hand bunkers.   The fairway is a pretty generous 40 yards wide.  There's no strategic advantage to being to the left or right side of the fairway.  To carry the barranca is only 450 to the beginning of the fairway in front of the green.  The tiny green, as do all the greens at PB, provides the challenge in the hole.

Thanks for the info. You're welcome.

If I recall correctly, fog and heavy ocean air seem to be the order of the day at PB, along with  some good breezes, so why is a hole with not one, but two demand carries dismissed so readily ?

Forget the PGA Tour Pros, they're in another world. Agreed.
View the hole in the context of the thousands that play it every year, from the zero to the 36 handicap.

This is a terrific hole at 493. Are you suggesting all levels of amateurs should troop back to the tips for this hole?  Is there any class of golfer for who these teees would be a bad choice and make the hole less than terrific?  By inference, I presume you're saying that it is less than terrific for some people off some of the tees.  If, as is usual for me, I play one tee up from the tips, then this is a 460 yard par 5.  Under neutral conditions and playing decently, I think it'd be a bit short.  I suppose, if I ever went back to PB, maybe I'd consider going back to the tips on that hole. 

How many have played it from the back of the back tee and had to contend with the two choices ? Probably not so many.  Don't we lecture people on here about picking the appropriate tees (for the course, not by hole).

And, as Huck said, approaching the green, or recovering to the green is no bargain.

And, the putting surface remains a challenge.

So, how is this an "ugh" hole.   Don't ask me.  I believe a certain well known and well regarded architect made that comment.  Strange, when he makes those kind of comments in a book about less revered courses it becomes a cherished collector's item worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars.  About PB, not so much appreciated.

And, for those declaring such, what is your handicap ?    Handicap is between 5 and 7 depending on the season.  Creeping up with age.  Is there a handicap at which I will get a better perspective of the greatness of holes and courses?

Like the par 5's at ANGC, this is a terrific hole that presents several dilemas and choices.

It's anything but bland.    Again, don't attribute "bland" to me.  I would guess that with a little work we could identify a reasonable number of examples of short par 5's near sea level where the player has to make "two choices" as you say above.  The 15th at Huck's beloved Carlsbad Crossings comes to mind as an example that might be more exciting than PB#2.  Not to say that PB#2 is bland. 

It's very interesting unless your interest is only held by holes with an ocean view.    "Very" interesting is in the eye of the beholder.  I like ocean views.  I like better playing "in" the ocean as they say about the Teeth of the Dog.

[Bryan Izatt]

And, just for fun.  I understand that there is universal agreement that the ocean holes at PB are world class or the best such in the world or whatever, but it struck me as odd that the course was designed with 9 and 10 being very similar holes.  Long par 4's of similar length. Tee higher and play a tilted fairway down to a cliffside green.  Fairways angled to the right relative to the tees.  A fairway bunker on the left side of the LZ.  Bunker front left of the green.  If you were designing it, would you have routed two similar holes back to back?  Or is my memory faulty, and the holes are really different.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Re the 2nd, the back edge of the back tee is about 65 yards back from the centre of the 1st green.  From way back there the hole is 493 yards (427 from the tee next to the 1st green).  In either case a marginal length for a par 5, even in persimmon and balata days, if you're playing from the right tees.  The carry over the "crossing" bunker is around 200 yards.  The last bunker on the right is 280 yards to carry although you'd come pretty close to nipping the buildings by the tee to take a line down the right hand bunkers.   The fairway is a pretty generous 40 yards wide.  There's no strategic advantage to being to the left or right side of the fairway.  To carry the barranca is only 450 to the beginning of the fairway in front of the green.  The tiny green, as do all the greens at PB, provides the challenge in the hole.

Thanks for the info. You're welcome.

If I recall correctly, fog and heavy ocean air seem to be the order of the day at PB, along with  some good breezes, so why is a hole with not one, but two demand carries dismissed so readily ?

Forget the PGA Tour Pros, they're in another world. Agreed.
View the hole in the context of the thousands that play it every year, from the zero to the 36 handicap.

This is a terrific hole at 493. Are you suggesting all levels of amateurs should troop back to the tips for this hole?  Is there any class of golfer for who these teees would be a bad choice and make the hole less than terrific?  By inference, I presume you're saying that it is less than terrific for some people off some of the tees.  If, as is usual for me, I play one tee up from the tips, then this is a 460 yard par 5.  Under neutral conditions and playing decently, I think it'd be a bit short.  I suppose, if I ever went back to PB, maybe I'd consider going back to the tips on that hole. 

I'm saying that before everyone condemns the hole that they should play it from the back tee.
It is a par 5 and it's ONLY 493 from the back tee.
Playing from the back tee brings the architectural features into play, whereas, from the forward tees that may not be the case.  It's quite a different hole from the back tee than it is from the forward tees, however, I'd say that very few golfers have played the back tee on # 2 and # 3.  Holes where the back tee allows for more "interfacing" with the architecture for those that think they're nothing holes.[/color]



How many have played it from the back of the back tee and had to contend with the two choices ? Probably not so many.  Don't we lecture people on here about picking the appropriate tees (for the course, not by hole).

There's a difference.
Many were being critical of this hole and # 3.
As a par 5, at 493 yards from the tips, I don't think it's an inappropriate tee for any golfer, especially if you want to provide an evaluation of the hole and how it plays.  One doesn't have to play a given set of tees in a leisurely round.[/color]



And, as Huck said, approaching the green, or recovering to the green is no bargain.

And, the putting surface remains a challenge.

So, how is this an "ugh" hole.   Don't ask me.  I believe a certain well known and well regarded architect made that comment.  Strange, when he makes those kind of comments in a book about less revered courses it becomes a cherished collector's item worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars.  About PB, not so much appreciated.

And, for those declaring such, what is your handicap ?    Handicap is between 5 and 7 depending on the season.  Creeping up with age.  Is there a handicap at which I will get a better perspective of the greatness of holes and courses?

Could be.

If you're analyzing and rating a hole, which happens to be a par 5, especially one that's only 493 from the tips and you're playing it from a FRONT tee, then your analysis is incomplete/flawed, because you haven't played the hole as the architect intended the better player to play it, allowing for the intended interfacing of the golfer with the architectural features.

At 460, with today's equipment, and as you stated, neutral conditions, from an elevated tee, a drive of 260 leaves the golfer 200 to the center of the green and probably a carry of no more than 170 to get over the crossing barranca bunker, that's certainly not the challenge intended.

But, moving back to 493 brings the fairway bunkers more into play with the drive and makes the crossing barranca bunker, small green and flanking bunkers more worthy of consideration on your second shot, and, should you mis-hit your tee shot, well, now you've got a difficult decision to make and a heightened pressure with respect to making a par[/color]




Like the par 5's at ANGC, this is a terrific hole that presents several dilemas and choices.

It's anything but bland.    Again, don't attribute "bland" to me.  I would guess that with a little work we could identify a reasonable number of examples of short par 5's near sea level where the player has to make "two choices" as you say above.  The 15th at Huck's beloved Carlsbad Crossings comes to mind as an example that might be more exciting than PB#2.  Not to say that PB#2 is bland. 

It's very interesting unless your interest is only held by holes with an ocean view.    "Very" interesting is in the eye of the beholder.  I like ocean views.  I like better playing "in" the ocean as they say about the Teeth of the Dog.

Then you're probably one of the founding members of the Huckaby "School of Surrounding Views".

Oceans, and water in general has a visual appeal, but, if it doesn't form part of the hole, it's just window dressing.  Nice window dressing, but, just window dressing that doesn't enhance the inherent architectural features and values.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Huckaby,

I'm going to make a convert out of you in 2008.

For those that say it's the ocean that makes PB, they have no architectural eye.

Each of the holes are terrific in their own right.
# 6, # 7, # 8, # 9 and # 10 would be spectacular in any setting.
# 2, # 3, # 4 and # 5 are solid holes.

As to # 11, it's a terrific hole.
Of those critical of the hole, I wonder how many times they played it.

And, I'd venture to say that many who give holes 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 fair marks, do so solely on the basis that those holes don't have the prime ocean views.

Their analytic eye gets distracted by the surroundings, not the immediate playing surfaces and architectural features that they must interface with.

So, come over to the dark side and dismiss the window dressing and embrace the architectural substance of the holes.

Pebble Beach is a WORLD class golf course that happens to be adjacent to the Pacific Ocean.

Patrick:  give up now.  You will never get me to agree that what my eye sees and my heart feels somehow doesn't matter in how great a golf hole is to me.  I will agree that it doesn't matter TO YOU, but it's a fool's errand to try to tell me how to feel.

But outside of that, I completely agree that each of those holes are great golf holes.  If you want to disregard what's obvious to the whole rest of the world in your assessments, then have at it.  Just remember - and I shall tell you this for about the 500th time now - what you call "window dressings" I have never said are the MOST important aspect of the assessment, nor are REQUIRED, nor are anything of the sort... all I ever said is that they MATTER - as a bonus in the case of Pebble Beach, or as perhaps a negative in the case of a course next to a toxic waste dump or the like.

I NEVER NEVER NEVER said the ocean "makes" PB.  All I ever said is that the views matter, exactly as I've described here, which I've also tried to explain to you at least 500 previous times - and yet you keep mischaracterizing me.   

You seem to think the views have ZERO role at all, and I continue to think you are quite crazy in that.

I'd say I have a goal of converting you in 2008, but I know my limitations.  You still think Charlie Weis is a fine coach and all is well at ND.

But enough of this - we're arguing particulars about the manner of getting to something on which we whole-heartedly agree... which is silly... if you want to say:

Pebble Beach is a WORLD class golf course that happens to be adjacent to the Pacific Ocean.

I will say, hear, here, full agreement, well said.

Because at least you've acknowledged that the Pacific Ocean EXISTS... baby steps in the right direction for you, Pat.

 



TH

[Adam Clayman]

Brian,  Perhaps this deserves it's own thread, but in short, the two holes do not play  at all similarly. The approaches are completely different tasks. The LZ's have significant differences too. I suspect The original of both holes were even more different.

[George Pazin]

And, just for fun.  I understand that there is universal agreement that the ocean holes at PB are world class or the best such in the world or whatever, but it struck me as odd that the course was designed with 9 and 10 being very similar holes.  Long par 4's of similar length. Tee higher and play a tilted fairway down to a cliffside green.  Fairways angled to the right relative to the tees.  A fairway bunker on the left side of the LZ.  Bunker front left of the green.  If you were designing it, would you have routed two similar holes back to back?  Or is my memory faulty, and the holes are really different.

I think these holes are a wonderful example of how relatively minor differences can make a major impact on play. It seems the different green complex makes all the difference in the world, a fact I'd guess would be lost on many.

[tlavin]

I've always thought that they were very similar, despite the difference in the greens.  I suppose I'm a sucker for the view, because I never thought that the extreme similarity was any sort of a design flaw.  It reminds me of the first time I visited San Francisco as a young lawyer.  I was in a conference room atop Nob Hill in a room with a panoramic view of the Golden Gate Bridge.  My mouth was agape and the court reporter hit me with a churlish aside, "What are you looking at?"  I pointed to the bridge and she shrugged her view-weary shoulders.  I had the same experience at Niagara Falls.  I suppose you can get "used" to any view, but the walk from 6-10 in particular is so awe-inspiring that I was never all that critical of the features of the holes I was playing, except to think that they were amazing, even if two of them are remarkably similar.

[Jason Topp]

This thread demonstrates the problem of breaking down a golf course into an analysis of individual holes.  To me, Pebble Beach's quality has a lot to do with the overall rhythm of the experience:

From a playing perspective:

1-7 - Birdie opportunities imposing pressure to make your score while you can
8-10 - like the main course of an exquisite dinner
11-16 - meat and potatos - not as exciting but a thorogh test of playing ability
17-18 - the memorable finish

From an experience perspective

1-3 - A warm up building anticipation for the experience to follow
4-10 You are on one of the special spots on earth
11-16 - Memorable primarily because of televised tournaments and the large houses
17 - this looked a lot better on TV
18 - A memory for a lifetime


Analyzing the merits of each hole can cause one to forget the merits of the entire experience, which, to me is as much a part of a great golf course as having a perfect, strategic golf hole.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jason - that was exceedingly well-put.  I concur wholeheartedly.  Note Adam Clayman has also tried many times to explain this similar to Pebble detractors, in terms of how the course flows.  It really is cool and unique in this respect.

The best I can put it is the whole is better than the sum of the parts, which of course really doesn't say much.  But in the case of Pebble it is true.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

I think something that is also lost on that 11 to 16 stretch is that even though you are not right next to it, you still have many ocean views along the way.  If anything after the wonderful treat of 4 to 10, the anticipation only build yet again as you know you will return for 17 and 18.  Its like the encore presentation to cap off the performance.

And as Huck says, if your eyes are open, and the sites, sounds, and smells, mean nothing to you, then you better check your pulse.

[TEPaul]

"I'm with Huck. 
Cindy Crawford ain't Cindy Crawford without that mole on her face."

Well, in that case I'm not even remotely with you or Huck, Shivas.

If for whatever reason Cindy Crawford decided to take her mole off you sure wouldn't find me throwing her outta the sack! And particularly if it seemed she felt somewhat insecure or vulnerable without her mole. I think it is my job and my responsiblity as an expert golf course architecture analyst to comfort people like that.

[Bob_Huntley]

Is there a man among us that was so disappointed with  these "ugh" holes on the course, that you demanded a refund?

There is no doubt that Nos 1 and 2 could be underwhelming for the accomplished player but they provide a challenge for the average handicapper, which in the US equates to about an 18.

No 3 is a wonderful hole and cost Mark Brooks the US Open in '92.

I could go on,  but I am with Mucci and Huckaby here, Pebble Beach is a gem.

Bob

[Bryan Izatt]

Brian,  Perhaps this deserves it's own thread, but in short, the two holes do not play  at all similarly. The approaches are completely different tasks. The LZ's have significant differences too. I suspect The original of both holes were even more different.

Adam, George,

Yes, I see that there are some differences, but I was struck by the fact that there were more similarities than differences. 

Could you explain a bit more about why the approaches are completely different tasks?  George, I guess I'm one of the many that the subtlety is lost on.  Could you explain? 

Perhaps there was a lost opportunity on that piece of land to build even better holes with more variety.  Not to say the the current two holes are bad or average.  They are not.  But, could it have been better with more variety.

Bob,

How about a partial refund in light of the outrageous fees.    It is indeed a gem, an expensive gem, but like many gems there are some slight internal flaws. 

[Bob_Huntley]

Bob,

How about a partial refund in light of the outrageous fees.    It is indeed a gem, an expensive gem, but like many gems there are some slight internal flaws. 

Bryan,

An outragageous fee is when there is no alternative to the service offered and is neccessary for the preservation of life and limb. No one is forced to fork over four hundred dollars for a game of golf. There have been times when I have paid more for a scalped ticket to the opera but I felt no need to complain. I wanted to see and hear it, so the price was immaterial.

We all have discretionary dollars, we should use them with joy and abandon.



Bob

[Tim Pitner]

As for the rest, my issue with PD - and I am loathe to mention this given I do truly love the course, believe me I do - is that while I concur there are no weak holes, there are also none quite as great as #6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 18 at PB... and I might even add 3, 4, 5, and 17 to that list as well.  I suppose #6 at PD can hold it's head amongst those as it is one unique, fantastic golf hole.  13 is pretty damn great hole too, and 16 and 17 are very cool.  But I don't go to PD looking forward to playing any one incredible hole outside of 6... whereas at PB, my heart sings for any of the holes I mentioned.

Pacific Dunes and Pebble Beach are such different courses, I think it's not really fair to compare them as is so often done.  Yes, they're both public-access, seaside courses but the similarities end there.  Pacific Dunes, while on a clifftop, is sand-based and plays like a links.  Pebble Beach is closer to the ocean, but has no links characteristics (despite its name). 

Tom, I take issue with the suggestion that #6 is the only stand-out hole at Pacific Dunes.  Outside of #1, the entire front side is pretty incredible in my book and I'd throw in #11, #13 and #15 too.  If you're saying that the only hole at PD that can compete with the likes of #17 at Pebble Beach is PD #6, then that's crazy talk.