Pebble Beach v Riviera ?

[ed_getka]

Tom,
  Well done on try #365. Now that I know you are representing 99% of the worlds golfers your argument makes more sense. I still don't buy your claim that you don't know enough about architecture to argue those points, but at least I know where you are coming from. I would certainly agree that the golfing masses would certainly prefer Pebble to Riviera. I tend to view these discussions through the narrow lens of how the majority on this site think about golf courses. Mea culpa.

[Tom Huckaby]

It is quite remarkable the number of times I hear about the "Six hour round at Pebble Beach." How many of the contributors to this particular thread have even played the course and give me the dates you had a six hour round?

When discussing the merits of the courses, pro and con, let us omit the the stuff about pace of play. Pebble is a public course and Riviera is private, there is going to be a disparity.

Bob

Fine questions, Bob.  I have been lucky to play Pebble 10 times (I think).  There was one six hour round.. in 1976.  My most recent round (absolute prime time last October) was completed in 4 hours with no waiting and no rushing... that is we COULD have gone faster.   I too get puzzled when this complaint arises.  But I am also puzzled at the assessments of "mediocre" golf holes on this course.... given the worst hole at Pebble Beach (maybe 15?) is as good as the best hole at my home muni.....

I wonder too if Riviera these days is always empty, always fast pace of play.  It's not what I have heard, but of course I don't know.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,
  Well done on try #365. Now that I know you are representing 99% of the worlds golfers your argument makes more sense. I still don't buy your claim that you don't know enough about architecture to argue those points, but at least I know where you are coming from. I would certainly agree that the golfing masses would certainly prefer Pebble to Riviera. I tend to view these discussions through the narrow lens of how the majority on this site think about golf courses. Mea culpa.

Mea culpa accepted, Ed.

I tend to find the narrow lens of the majority here to be arcane information at best.  But to each his own.

As for me, I neither know nor care about "architecture" as I have tried to define it here.  So please believe, I have not even close to enough knowledge required to assess such at either Pebble or Riviera - and such for these courses is at least out there!  That is, pre-construction pictures and accounts.  It's just not my bag.

Man I wonder how many here do seem to know that about all the new courses we discuss.. you guys must really dig.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I'm also curious as you pointed out before why Riv gets a free pass on the issue that the Kikuya makes many of the holes play differently than its original design intent?

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

I'm also curious as you pointed out before why Riv gets a free pass on the issue that the Kikuya makes many of the holes play differently than its original design intent?

Hey, that's way beyond my scope.  I hear it works out that way, but again, how it plays compared to its design intent remains not my bag.  How it plays PERIOD is what I remain interested in... does the kikuyu make it less fun to play?  No clue here, but some have said that.

TH

[Sean_A]

Sorry... I know I said I'd stay in the corner but I can't resist....

It seems to me this has very little to do with setting.  Those who want to assess "design" and "architecture" prefer Riv, those who base this on playing the game prefer Pebble.

 

So those attributes are mutually exclusive?

Oh yes, quite clearly so - to me they are indeed two totally different questions.. and as I've said many times, I feel wholly unqualified to begin to assess the former.  I'd never make a statement that " the design of Riviera is superior, IMHO. In other words, there's more architecture."

Huckabilly

Here is the area I can't buy. Like David questions, these two things are mutually exclusive?  Not completely imo.   I can understand your approach of the design being only one element that makes up greatness and I agree.  However, regardless if we know all the ins and outs of what happened in the design and construction phases (who does - not even the archie knows it all), we all can have an opinion on whether we prefer one design type or another.  That isn't to say one is superior or greater, only that one may help make the experience be a great one. 

Ciao   

[Michael Moore]

Tom -

How are you able to assess design variety as a Golf Digest rater?

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom -

How are you able to assess design variety as a Golf Digest rater?

I answer the question based on the definition given.

How varied are the holes in terms of differing lengths (long,
medium and short par 3s, 4s and 5s), configurations (straight
holes, doglegs left and right), hazard placements, green shapes
and green contours?

What information or knowledge do I need other than viewing the course to make that assessment?

[Tom Huckaby]

Sorry... I know I said I'd stay in the corner but I can't resist....

It seems to me this has very little to do with setting.  Those who want to assess "design" and "architecture" prefer Riv, those who base this on playing the game prefer Pebble.

 

So those attributes are mutually exclusive?

Oh yes, quite clearly so - to me they are indeed two totally different questions.. and as I've said many times, I feel wholly unqualified to begin to assess the former.  I'd never make a statement that " the design of Riviera is superior, IMHO. In other words, there's more architecture."

Huckabilly

Here is the area I can't buy. Like David questions, these two things are mutually exclusive?  Not completely imo.   I can understand your approach of the design being only one element that makes up greatness and I agree.  However, regardless if we know all the ins and outs of what happened in the design and construction phases (who does - not even the archie knows it all), we all can have an opinion on whether we prefer one design type or another.  That isn't to say one is superior or greater, only that one may help make the experience be a great one. 

Ciao   

That's all fine and dandy, Sean. Obviously aficionados of this stuff will have their likes and dislikes.

But that ain't the question I am asking. 

If one asks me "how good is this golf course" I don't see how "the quality of the design" or the "architecture" (as I have defined it) has anything to do with the answer.  Not out in the real world anyway.  To me it truly is a totally different question.

That is...

1. How great is the design/architecture?

2. How great is the golf course?

As I explained it before.  One asks about design skill and requires the knowledge I stated. The other asks about course quality and anyone can opine just based on playing or seeing a course.

But hell I have beaten the horse beyond death, and I'll just add you to the legions who either don't get this or don't accept it.

TH

[Sean_A]

Sorry... I know I said I'd stay in the corner but I can't resist....

It seems to me this has very little to do with setting.  Those who want to assess "design" and "architecture" prefer Riv, those who base this on playing the game prefer Pebble.

 

So those attributes are mutually exclusive?

Oh yes, quite clearly so - to me they are indeed two totally different questions.. and as I've said many times, I feel wholly unqualified to begin to assess the former.  I'd never make a statement that " the design of Riviera is superior, IMHO. In other words, there's more architecture."

Huckabilly

Here is the area I can't buy. Like David questions, these two things are mutually exclusive?  Not completely imo.   I can understand your approach of the design being only one element that makes up greatness and I agree.  However, regardless if we know all the ins and outs of what happened in the design and construction phases (who does - not even the archie knows it all), we all can have an opinion on whether we prefer one design type or another.  That isn't to say one is superior or greater, only that one may help make the experience be a great one. 

Ciao   

That's all fine and dandy, Sean. Obviously aficionados of this stuff will have their likes and dislikes.

But that ain't the question I am asking. 

If one asks me "how good is this golf course" I don't see how "the quality of the design" or the "architecture" (as I have defined it) has anything to do with the answer.  Not out in the real world anyway.

TH

Huckster

If the quality of the course and its architecture are mutually exclusive I would suggest that your definition of "architecture" is a wanting.  That is like saying a house is terribly built, but that has nothing to do with the design.  Who knows, perhaps the design is one reason why the house was terribly built - the two can't automatically be ruled as mutually exclusive.  Architecture refers to the style (as in Victorian), the design and the construction aspects.  I can accept that you are no expert nor have any interest in construction aspects of architecture, but surely you have design and style preferences.  Again, that doesn't mean one is greater than the other unless we are measuring against how successfully each fulfilled the brief given to the archie given all the relevant limitations.   

Ciao   

[mark chalfant]

Tom H.


I find the first  four holes at Riviera much more inspiring than the same four at Pebble. For instance, RCC   number one has a pretty tee shot with OB and a very cool green. Number two has a tough uphill approach to a nice green complex . Although I think Pebble's fourth is a nice par four ,  I prefer Riviera's 240 yard  fourth.

The latter is a devilish  par three that falls early in the round. A solid start is not a requirement be an iconic course. But in my mind its part of the equation.  In your region,  I find the first four or five holes at Calclub, Pasatiempo and SFGC much more engaging than those at PB.   

Tom and Bob  I would take the back nine at public Pasatiempo, 7 plays to 3 over Pebble's  incoming melange,  

How about  you ?

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

You do not understand my position.  This really has nothing to do with design or style preferences or anything of the sort.

This is about trying to ascertain the better way to evaluate GOLF COURSES.

Certainly a course, like a house, must be built.  So of course how it gets built does matter.  And the skill involved in such quite obviously effects the end product.

To me however it remains quite simple.  We ought to evaluate the end product.  Many here want to evaluate the process.  That is also of course fine and dandy... it just remains a very separate question.

So when asked "how great is a golf course", I just can't accept why the process is part of that answer.  It is indeed a very separate question.

JUST NOTE... if you want to answer the question with "i think it's great because it incorporates a design style I like" that is also very fine.  At least you are answering the proper question.

What I don't get is answering the question with "the design is superior."  That to me is not answering the question.  

I am now up to 400 tries at this.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom H.


I find the first  four holes at Riviera much more inspiring than the same four at Pebble. for instance #1 has a pretty tee shot with OB and a very cool green Number 2 has tough uphill approach to a nice green complex . Although   i think Pebbles fourth is a nice par four , but I prefer rivieras 240 yard  fourth.

The latter is devilish  par three early in the round. a solid start is not requirement be an iconic ocurse. but in my mind its part of the eqation.
In your region  I find first 4 or five holes at Cal club, Pasa tiempo and SFGC  much more engaging than  PB.  Tom and Bob  i would take the back nine at public Pasatiempo,    7 plays to 3  over  Pebble's  incoming melange  

How about  you ?

LOL - that's a lot of questions there.

First, I can't recall enough about Riv to make a hole for hole comparison, nor do I have the will to go study up.  I have said many times take my thoughts with an ocean of salt.

As for Pebble v, the others.... I am not sure what the relevance is of separating out holes, or groups of holes.  I find Pebble fairly clearly superior on the overall to each of Cal Club, Pasatiempo and SFGC.  To flesh this out would require energy I am rapidly losing as I take on the world here.  Assuming you disagree, then we shall just have to agree to leave it at that.

TH

[David Stamm]

Tom,

You must please refrain from making posts like this...there is too much logic in them.  Don't you know that GCA.com will self-destruct if you keep this up?

Switching gears, I'm curious if any who pick Riveria can point to these several specific examples of strategy and architecture and why its superior to Pebble.  And yes, hole # 10 has been discussed ad nauesam, its a wonderful hole even though I have my own side theory on that one..but I admit its a fantastic hole.

In the meantime I will formulate a case for why I think PB is good and what is unique to it that either can't be found at Riv or is unmatched by it.

Kalen, have you played both?

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

You must please refrain from making posts like this...there is too much logic in them.  Don't you know that GCA.com will self-destruct if you keep this up?

Switching gears, I'm curious if any who pick Riveria can point to these several specific examples of strategy and architecture and why its superior to Pebble.  And yes, hole # 10 has been discussed ad nauesam, its a wonderful hole even though I have my own side theory on that one..but I admit its a fantastic hole.

In the meantime I will formulate a case for why I think PB is good and what is unique to it that either can't be found at Riv or is unmatched by it.

Kalen, have you played both?

David - go back to post 1 - Matt did not require playing of such, which seems to make sense given each course is so very visible.

TH

[Sean_A]

Sean:

You do not understand my position.  This really has nothing to do with design or style preferences or anything of the sort.

This is about trying to ascertain the better way to evaluate GOLF COURSES.

Certainly a course, like a house, must be built.  So of course how it gets built does matter.  And the skill involved in such quite obviously effects the end product.

To me however it remains quite simple.  We ought to evaluate the end product.  Many here want to evaluate the process.  That is also of course fine and dandy... it just remains a very separate question.

So when asked "how great is a golf course", I just can't accept why the process is part of that answer.  It is indeed a very separate question.

JUST NOTE... if you want to answer the question with "i think it's great because it incorporates a design style I like" that is also very fine.  At least you are answering the proper question.

What I don't get is answering the question with "the design is superior."  That to me is not answering the question.  

I am now up to 400 tries at this.

 

Huck

I think I got you now.  From the above post I would agree with you.  Hence the reason I stated in my first post, "However, all courses have one thing in common, the final product.  I personally don't care what issues weren't in the archie's control.  He must take the good with the bad.  The goal remains the same, to sell green fees/memberships.  Nobody (well as you state 99%) wants to hear about how the sun was in his eyes or other excuses - valid or not."  I am really only concerned about the course as and when I tee it up.  All the other architectural mumbo jumbo about why, therefore and consequentially doesn't mean much to me.  I spose this is why the archie has a huge advantage if he gets good land to work with.

To be honest, I can readily accept that a course is great, but at the same time that it doesn't do much for me and that I am not too bothered if I ever return.  By the same token, I can play a course which I think is good (not great), but it somehow (and it doesn't matter if I can't explain why) registers something special with me and I will want to go back many a time.  I always look at courses from the point of view as a day out (all the ancillary bits included) and if I would like to repeat that day out.  There are plenty of great courses out there, but relatively few special days out.  It would be mighty interesting to be able to compare Riviera and Pebble and I am envious of those who can on whatever level they choose.  

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

EUREKA!

We have come to a consensus.  So I am up to two who get this and seem to accept it.  It is a banner day.

 

That was very well said - I kinda thought you and I saw this pretty much the same.  And we do.

TH

[Michael Moore]

To me however it remains quite simple.  We ought to evaluate the end product.  Many here want to evaluate the process.  That is also of course fine and dandy... it just remains a very separate question.

Tom,

On this thread, who wanted to "evaluate the process" ?

[David Stamm]

In the meantime I will formulate a case for why I think PB is good and what is unique to it that either can't be found at Riv or is unmatched by it.

Kalen, have you played both?

David - go back to post 1 - Matt did not require playing of such, which seems to make sense given each course is so very visible.

TH

Thank you, Kalen.


Do you think Kalen can possibly do the above without playing them, regardless of what Matt asked? Could you? I've never been to the UK, so I couldn't possibly evaluate Muirfield vs Turnberry or others in the rota, although I've seen them MANY times on tv, so are therefore visible. I know what LOOKS to be something I would like, but until I play it, how would I know? Conversely, something that may not look good to me at first glance could blow my socks off after playing and therefore I would've missed out on something.


BTW, Spaulds misses very little when it come to courses. That engineer mind of his......

[Tom Huckaby]

To me however it remains quite simple.  We ought to evaluate the end product.  Many here want to evaluate the process.  That is also of course fine and dandy... it just remains a very separate question.

Tom,

On this thread, who wanted to "evaluate the process" ?

By my take, those who would answer "which is the better course" with "the design at X is superior."

I thought some did that... not gonna bother going back to look... OBVIOUSLY I have taken this thread on a tangent beyond the issue of these two courses.

Hey at some point do I get to be the lawyer and you the defendant?

 

[Tom Huckaby]

In the meantime I will formulate a case for why I think PB is good and what is unique to it that either can't be found at Riv or is unmatched by it.

Kalen, have you played both?

David - go back to post 1 - Matt did not require playing of such, which seems to make sense given each course is so very visible.

TH

Thank you, Kalen.


Do you think Kalen can possibly do the above without playing them, regardless of what Matt asked? Could you? I've never been to the UK, so I couldn't possibly evaluate Muirfield vs Turnberry or others in the rota, although I've seen them MANY times on tv, so are therefore visible. I know what LOOKS to be something I would like, but until I play it, how would I know? Conversely, something that may not look good to me at first glance could blow my socks off after playing and therefore I would've missed out on something.


BTW, Spaulds misses very little when it come to courses. That engineer mind of his......

Can one MOST effectively evaluate two courses based on TV or pictures only? Of course not.  Can one answer a question asking to evaluate two courses whether one has played them or not, as Matt listed?  Of course.

As for Jon, oh I trust his long hitting self and oh-so-well educated mind.  I just accept he's also not perfect.  If he does not, then that's cool.   In any case, you can have Jon and whoever else you want.  I've got Huntley on my side.  Is there anyone more familiar with BOTH of these courses than he?

[David Stamm]

In the meantime I will formulate a case for why I think PB is good and what is unique to it that either can't be found at Riv or is unmatched by it.

Kalen, have you played both?

David - go back to post 1 - Matt did not require playing of such, which seems to make sense given each course is so very visible.

TH

Thank you, Kalen.


Do you think Kalen can possibly do the above without playing them, regardless of what Matt asked? Could you? I've never been to the UK, so I couldn't possibly evaluate Muirfield vs Turnberry or others in the rota, although I've seen them MANY times on tv, so are therefore visible. I know what LOOKS to be something I would like, but until I play it, how would I know? Conversely, something that may not look good to me at first glance could blow my socks off after playing and therefore I would've missed out on something.


BTW, Spaulds misses very little when it come to courses. That engineer mind of his......

   I've got Huntley on my side.  Is there anyone more familiar with BOTH of these courses than he?

I agree, his experiences on both are probably unmatched here, but I must've missed his endoresment of your drivel.

[Tom Huckaby]

He most definitely stated a preference for Pebble Beach over Riviera - see reply 13.

As for the rest of my brilliance in the tangential, he has yet to opine.  But then again I seem to have Jon on my side there also, given how he changed his answers. 

TH

[Mike Wagner]

Tom,

Your logic is appreciated here!  I think the Ocean part of this argument is TOTALLY understated.  "What is the Riv had ocean views".....blah, blah,blah...

Pebble doesn't just have Ocean views......the ocean is IN PLAY.......ON 9 HOLES!!!! Give me a break.....go ahead and give Riviera all the ocean views you want.  Pebble IS the ocean.  Is there anything like standing on #8 (or any other ocean holes) and knowing your ball might end up there???

The finishing holes are not even to be compared.  Really, is there a better 17/18 than Pebble....really??

[Michael Moore]

Tom -

How are you able to assess design variety as a Golf Digest rater?

I answer the question based on the definition given.

How varied are the holes in terms of differing lengths (long,
medium and short par 3s, 4s and 5s), configurations (straight
holes, doglegs left and right), hazard placements, green shapes
and green contours?

What information or knowledge do I need other than viewing the course to make that assessment?

Sorry, I thought that an assessment of "design variety" would ask

How varied were the design processes in terms of tools used (motorized, animal powered, the human hand), blueprints (detailed diagrams, stick-in-the-sand), and temperment of the architect (cool and collected, raving maniac) used to construct this course?