This is what happens when your internet connection goes down...people answer your question hours ago. Here are my continuations, for those interested. And, for edification, my question "Is it a CONSISTENTLY great course?" was not meant to be a loaded question, leading to the conclusion that it is not. It was meant to be open-ended, as has been my participation in this thread since page one. I don't believe that someone who has not played the course, as I have not, has any right to participate in anything beyond an open-ended questioning.
Ian Andrew (Reply #75, Page 3)...That is a most erudite observation. I like the idea in music, theater and golf, of rise and fall and rise and fall and rise until the climactic moment (hopefully at the end) is reached. I bet (and hope) that many disagree with your notion of tremendous disappointment (I hope that it is not that thorough, since nearly half the course is left to be played) upon finishing the 10th hole. I would imagine that 14 through 16 set up 17 and 18 very well, so I would agree with you on point #2. Regarding point 3, I don't necessarily think that "compete" with is the idea here. I used the word "complement," although perhaps "support" might have worked better.
Matt Ward (Reply #76, Page 3)...You are a feisty f&$^, aren't you? That's good for this forum, I declare. A course doesn't have to be consistent, but a great course has to be consistently great. Name one that isn't. The reason I bring this up is, the Pebble Beach detractors seem to point to anywhere from 4 to 8 holes as ordinary to somewhat ordinary (those being any four to eight of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 15, 17). Understand that I AM NOT SAYING THIS, I am simply gleaning this information from the opinions of others. Cypress Point, Merion, NGLA, The Old Course, Oakmont, Royal County Down, Muirfield, et al do not have this many potentially ordinary holes, from anyone's perspective. When you say "you play alongside the water," is one to assume that playing alongside the water disqualifies ordinary? Again, I don't know. I'm simply asking.
Patrick Mucci (Reply #88, Page 3)...There's something unique about being chastised with green ink, I'll say. You're like that rogue professor that corrects in green, not red. Good for you! Thanks for answering the question without ifs, ands or any other conjunction. You then assign to me a notion that "non-sequential holes need to complement each other." I don't believe I assigned that notion to greatness; I inquired about the non-great holes complementing the great holes. I think that Ian Andrew addressed this point precisely by alluding to a crescendo effect. That's the type of interpretation I sought. I haven't played Maidstone, NGLA nor Seminole, so I can't comment on those holes. However, I can say that Bandon Dunes #4 and #16 do complement each other. They both play northward, both bend left to right, both finish with green sites close to or at the water's edge. Do they have to complement each other? It's good that they do. Regarding the cost of the course, since I haven't played it, I have no bias one way or the other. I don't look back and say "man, those holes were all were $25 each to play" or "I can't believe I paid $30 a hole for that." Instead, I sit here and inquire of others. Many played it decades ago, when cost and access were more reasonable. Others have played it recently, when ... not so much. Conditions have changed too, as evidenced by those still frames from the Nicklaus-Snead Shell's Match. Matt Ward emphasizes the importance of the differing states/conditions of Pebble as directly related to the experience. I agree that one mole has no effect on Cindy Crawford's beauty...4 to 8 of them might change things, ergo, my interrogation.