[Michael Dugger]

I don't understand why my comparison of Sand Hills vs Riviera did not meet this same intellectual roadblock.  I even surprised myself by finding out that Sand Hills was the winner.  You guys are forcing Jamie into a corner and boring us to death.

I concede, you are correct, John.

'Tis much more exciting reading about how you almost had to blow a guy. 

Methinks your penchant for boredom is what got you into that situation in the first place.

[Jordan Wall]

... Pebble definitely plays softer. ...
...

Jordan,

I don't have to play Pebble with you validating my arguments.

And you must be a mind reader, because I have never said I love Pacific Dunes.

I don't recall any of your posts on this thread talking about the conditioning of Cypress Point versus Pebble...

Jamie,

I would agree that most of the greens at Pebble aren't too severe.  Small, yes, but severe, I think not.

However, I think part of what makes Pebble great is the small greens.  While big, undulating greens are often praised on this website, I like Pebble's as they are original to other great courses I've seen in that the greens play extremely well despite the fact they are so small.  Even with them being miniscule, they still emphasize angles of play and hitting to the correct portion of the fairway.  This is evident on 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18.

For instance, as you are now on discussion of the third hole, the left side of the fairway offers a much better angle to the green than the right.  However, putting the tee shot on the left side of the fairway forces you to negotiate the bunkers fronting the fairway in the ravine.  My only problem with the third at Pebble is the bunkers past the fairway.  Why are they there?

I haven't seen PD as much as Pebble, but the third at Pacific is quite good as well.  The back right pin seemed like it would be a brute and overall it plays as a solid par-5.  The fact it gets you out to the ocean also ups the excitement.  I like how the opening three holes at Pacific build up to the crescendo that is the fourth which is one of my favorite holes I've ever played.  

[Garland Bayley]

I don't understand why my comparison of Sand Hills vs Riviera did not meet this same intellectual roadblock.  I even surprised myself by finding out that Sand Hills was the winner.  You guys are forcing Jamie into a corner and boring us to death.

John,

How can you be bored when we are extracting gems like this:

Garland,

Don't ever Mucci me in green again.

...

We know you live for extracting such responses.
 

[Garland Bayley]

I don't recall any of your posts on this thread talking about the conditioning of Cypress Point versus Pebble...

Transitive property of firmness Jordan. Pacific is firmer than Cypress, Cypress is firmer than Pebble, therefore Pacific is firmer than Pebble through the evidence supplied by you.
 

Sorry about the green. I forgot your favorite color is pink.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

I don't recall any of your posts on this thread talking about the conditioning of Cypress Point versus Pebble...

Transitive property of firmness Jordan. Pacific is firmer than Cypress, Cypress is firmer than Pebble, therefore Pacific is firmer than Pebble through the evidence supplied by you.
 

Sorry about the green. I forgot your favorite color is pink.

Garland, I don't think any of us ever said Pebble played firmer than Pacific. If I said that, please show it to me, because that is certainly not what I meant and need to change that quickly. What I did say was that Pebble does not play nearly as soft and slow as many of you seem to think it does, baring record rains. The flaws you seem to indicate at Pebble, some personally cooked up idea that Pebble is inferior because is does not play as dry showed an ignorance (no offense intended, just saying a plain lack of knowledge) of the geological properties of the two sites, which I showed you. If Cypress plays firmer, then it is because of maintenance practices or turf selection or something else as the soil properties are classified by the USDA as being the same at both sites. What it does not take into consideration, and something that I would say only 1 or 2 people here would really be able to comment on, are possible micro-climate differences between the two sites; these may or may not exist, just a possibility. Pebble does play slightly softer and slower than Pacific, but that is not a inherent flaw, much more goes into design than just that one thing.

[Tim Bert]

Michael -

If you'd like to know why Pacific plays harder for me then you could ask instead of speculating. I agree Tom's courses tend to place an emphasis on the short game and putting. I have only played a handful of his courses, but I think Pacific puts less emphasis on putting (at least for the weaker player than doesnt expect to make many putts anyway) than the others I've played and would imagine based on what I've seen this is true in general.  Pacific has the smallest set of greens of the few Doak courses I have played. I think putting at Pebble is as challenging if not more challenging than at Pacific due to the pitch in the small greens at Pebble. I am not a great putter but for my skill level I think I am sufficient.

The trouble for me at Pacific is off the tee and on the approaches. I am not a consistent ballstriker and there is trouble looming on almost every hole at Pacific, in most cases whether I choose driver or something less off the tee and in many cases whether I am playing to the green in regulation or laying up. I have had a disaster on almost every hole there. With Pebble I am more likely to get in a double bogey funk or rattle off a buch of bogeys without any hole for par but I haven't seen the same potential for monster numbers there.

So, yes, bad golfers come in shapes and forms but this one plays in a different manner than you speculated.

[Jud_T]

Tim,

Have you ever played Pac Dunes when there was little to no wind? To me this is the main difference in how difficult the course plays.  I've played it in a steady 30 MPH breeze and first off with virtually no wind and it's practically two different courses.  Granted, it's rare that there's very little wind...I've never played Pebble in a stiff wind, but I can imagine that it'd be VERY difficult for the average 15 HDCP...

[Patrick_Mucci]

I never declared Pebble Beach has no drainage.


You certainly implied it.
And, you did so without ever having played Pebble Beach, rain or shine.

When you remove the ocean from the consideration of architecture, and I repeat that you have removed it from the consideration of architecture,

You're being intellectually dishonest again.
I NEVER removed the ocean from "consideraton of the architecture"
Since your reading comprehension skills are lacking, here's what I stated.

The only area that the ocean impacts the architecture is when it's an integral part of the hole, like on # 18 and other holes where it's the hazard to be dealt with.


you start your infamous, ill-considered rant about "have you played?", and change the topic to Pebble Beach.

"Change the topic" ?
Why don't you look at the TITLE of this thread.
It's about Pebble Beach.
Might I suggest a refresher course in reading comprehension ?
Either that, or have someone read for you.


You need to get over your fixation on "have you played?".

So we should rely on uninformed, inexperienced posters like you to tell us about how Pebble Beach drains when you've never been there.

You need to know what you're talking about BEFORE you hit "post"

Having played Pebble Beach did not qualify you to answer whether people spray balls onto the nearby properties.

Of course it did.
One things for sure, NOT having played PB disqualifies you from telling us how the course plays

In fact you got it wrong.



No, I didn't get it wrong.
And, how would you know right from wrong since you've never been there ?

Somehow you think playing is the answer to everything. It's not, and it's unfortunate that you can't figure that out.
It's the answer to everything about playing the course versus someone who's never seen it, let alone played it.
Youre opinions on the play of PB are utterly worthless.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So, right down the street from PB, Mike Strantz spent millions of dollars sand capping MPCC for what, the heck of it?

I mention this because if the "conditions" at Cypress and Spyglass are similar to Pebble, than surely we have to include MPCC into this discussion.

As for Pacific Dunes.  I do believe some sand had to be capped over some of the course, on the "red top" in particular.

But to say the entire course was sand capped is bull.  When they lopped off the top of a dune to create the 14th green, for example, did they sand cap it?  I'm looking at you Pat Mucci.  

Michael Dugger,

You rang ?

Who said the entire course was sand capped ?
Would you cite the cretin for us ?

Or, are your reading comprehension skills the equal of Garland's ?

Tom Doak cited, with specifics where sand capping was employed.
If I recall correctly, # 13 that great par 4 might have been one of the holes where sand capping was involved.

Garland's total unfamiliarity with Pebble Beach has caused him to make erroneous comments about the course.

I'm still wondering how the ocean comes into play on # 15 and # 16 and how one could imply that PB doesn't have any drainage.

[Tim Bert]

Tim,

Have you ever played Pac Dunes when there was little to no wind? To me this is the main difference in how difficult the course plays.  I've played it in a steady 30 MPH breeze and first off with virtually no wind and it's practically two different courses.  Granted, it's rare that there's very little wind...I've never played Pebble in a stiff wind, but I can imagine that it'd be VERY difficult for the average 15 HDCP...

Jud - I have played Pacific in dead calm conditions at least twice, maybe three times. I've also played it in extreme wind as well as during a heavy downpour. The result is always the same for me. I'll readily admit that more than anywhere else that course is in my head. It doesn't diminish the experience for me. I still love it; I just can't play it.

I've been told I could get around the course in under 90 using just a hybrid off the tee and a 9 iron out of every fairway. I don't entirely believe it because I have hit some really bad shots there with every club. Even if I could break 90 that way, playing scared doesn't meet my definition of playable or fun. I'd rather go at it and take the result.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Tim,

Have you ever played Pac Dunes when there was little to no wind? To me this is the main difference in how difficult the course plays.  I've played it in a steady 30 MPH breeze and first off with virtually no wind and it's practically two different courses.  Granted, it's rare that there's very little wind...I've never played Pebble in a stiff wind, but I can imagine that it'd be VERY difficult for the average 15 HDCP...

The wind is an issue at Pebble, but probably not as much as you may think. At Pebble, only about 8 shots are played with a predominant cross wind. A few others are played with a quartering breeze. But for the most part, and this is the case at Pacific as well, shots are played directly into or with the breeze. Pebble is a playable course, very much so. I would say that it is much the same in playability for the average golfer as is Pacific. I've said before on here that often times shots that go off line at Pacific wind up in some really crazy areas, at Pebble Beach that is typically not the case, balls that go off line are easily played, not to say an easy shot, but 2 inch turf is easier to play from than calf deep "hay." Both courses are pretty much designed for moderate winds. Neither course is well designed for 25+ mph winds, IMO.

[Ian_L]

Tim,

I have the same feeling as you playing Pacific Dunes.  While my irons are pretty good in general, I will usually have several wild drives in the course of 18 holes, which often results in a lost ball at PD.

I've been told I could get around the course in under 90 using just a hybrid off the tee and a 9 iron out of every fairway. I don't entirely believe it because I have hit some really bad shots there with every club. Even if I could break 90 that way, playing scared doesn't meet my definition of playable or fun. I'd rather go at it and take the result.

Do you think the course would be more fun if there weren't danger looming on so many shots?  I know I would prefer to find my ball on most holes after a terrible drive, even if I'm still 300 yards away on a par 4. I loved the course in my two plays, but the potential for re-hitting on nearly every hole is a drawback, in my opinion.  I  do think the threat of a lost ball is appropriate when used sparingly and strategically (the ocean holes, for example), but a bit more grass cutting and gorse removal would certainly make PD more fun for me.

I'll be there next week to check it out again .

[Andy Troeger]

Does the "lost ball" issue become more prevalent at certain times of the year at Pac Dunes? I was out there in March and felt like that was a plus--you could hit the ball all over the place and generally find it. I did hit it all over the place, and made a few big numbers, but never lost a ball. I lost one ball in four rounds at the resort and that was #1 Trails where I hit it way right and only made a half-hearted attempt to look since my group kindly gave me a 1st-tee mulligan. That was part of what made the trip so much fun--you could hit it and find it, even if it was in a lousy spot.

Pebble doesn't really lend itself to lost balls either unless you hit it in the ocean. I hit two foul balls over the cliff on #10, but those were the only lost balls of the day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What year did they install the cart paths with curbs at PB ?
And was the primary reason the death of some golfers who plunged off the cliff on # 8 while riding in their cart ?

Also, on a daily basis, how many golfers does each course accomodate ?

[Tom_Doak]

I'm not saying it would be true for everyone, but I've lost more balls at Pebble Beach than I have at Pacific Dunes in my lifetime -- and I've played Pacific Dunes about 75 times and Pebble about 12!  At Pebble there are more opportunities to go over the cliffs, and the thick tall fescue in the roughs makes it possible to lose a ball that you've only advanced 15 feet from its previous spot.  Heck, Mike Davis and I lost a ball in the bunker face on the 3rd hole at Pebble Beach, in the media day before the last U.S. Open.

Otherwise, carry on ... I do not wish to alter the outcome of this thread, I'm just a fact-checker.

[Tim Bert]

I don't think either course, when played under normal conditions, yield a large number of lost balls.  I am sure when the rough at Pebble is brought up to eat balls at tournament time it is a different beast.  The way it is typically maintained for the golfing public there's only a few spots where I think that would happen.

I can state for a fact that I have lost more balls on Pacific Dunes #18 in my 12 rounds than I have the entire three times around Pebble.

I have yet to see anyone get out of the dune right on #1 in only one stroke.  I've seen a ball lost on #2 way left, but that was the players fault.  I've seen multiple balls lost in the gorse on #3.  I've seen balls over the cliff on #4.  #11 has claimed a few wayward balls from our group, as has #13.  The gorse can claim a ball on #15 and I've seen foolish attempts to drive the green on #16 get lost to the right.  We've lost balls on #17 to the gorse as well.  #18 is the real ball-eater for me, as I mentioned already.

For me the real damage at Pacific comes not from the lost balls but from the extremely penal places a ball can wind up in play that can turn into a multi-stroke penalty.  Almost every hole can step up and completely ruin a round for me there.  At the same time, I feel like I have a fighting chance at birdie at most of those same holes.  There just isn't much room for error on the course when the wind starts blowing.  And when the wind isn't blowing I probably start to press and get overly aggressive. 

Let's keep it in perspective.  I still have Pacific Dunes 3-up through 3 at this point in Jamie's match and we are getting to the point of the match where I start to feel like I have to take it easy on Pebble or I will lose whatever remaining credibility I might have with a small fraction of people on this site.

[Garland Bayley]

...
When you remove the ocean from the consideration of architecture, and I repeat that you have removed it from the consideration of architecture,

You're being intellectually dishonest again.
I NEVER removed the ocean from "consideraton of the architecture"
Since your reading comprehension skills are lacking, here's what I stated.

The only area that the ocean impacts the architecture is when it's an integral part of the hole, like on # 18 and other holes where it's the hazard to be dealt with.

...

What we suffer from here is my pithy writing, and your apparent refusal to read the whole thread where my explanations are written at the request of others, or your apparent refusal to attempt to understand those explanations.

You underlined statement above proves the "removal" of the ocean from consideration of the architecture as explained by other posts by me.

As I explained in those posts, aesthetics is a very significant portion of architecture. You say the only impact is where it is integral to the hole like where it is a hazard.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

Tell us how the ocean is part of the architecture on holes # 1, 2, 3, old 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 ?

On holes  4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17 and 18 the ocean is a hazard, and an integral part of the golf course, so tell us, on the first 10 holes listed above, how the ocean is part of the architecture

[Garland Bayley]

Why would we talk about old 5? The new 5 enhances aesthetics of the course with the additional ocean aesthetic.
Your discussion seems to try to deny that golf is played in nature and the aesthetics of nature are a significant part of the architecture.

the water comes into play, or at least must be dealt with, often. It is not really in play on 4 or 5, I can see the argument where it is not in play on 6 and 7, though I think it is off the tee, water is in play on 8 and 9, a little bit on 10, not on 17 and certainly in play on 18.

On holes  4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17 and 18 the ocean is a hazard

I do wish you people who play Pebble Beach could actually figure out what was there. Patrick's constant Have you played .. depends on it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why would we talk about old 5? The new 5 enhances aesthetics of the course with the additional ocean aesthetic.
Your discussion seems to try to deny that golf is played in nature and the aesthetics of nature are a significant part of the architecture.
Because the old # 5 was an original hole and probably a better hole

Would you answer the question about the 10 holes I listed

On holes  4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17 and 18 the ocean is a hazard

I do wish you people who play Pebble Beach could actually figure out what was there. Patrick's constant Have you played .. depends on it.

I can see why you need help from people who have actually played PB, since you can't comment on how PB plays as you've never been there let alone played the golf course.

If instead of the Pacific it was Lake Nona or the Okeefanokee (sp?) swamp, the course would play the same

[Jason Topp]

I like both of these holes and call a draw  PD 2 up

[Sean_A]

I hope this thread can get back on track.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

How is the Pacific an architectural feature or part of the architecture on holes 1, 2, 3, old 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 ?

Same question at PD holes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 ?

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Why would we talk about old 5? The new 5 enhances aesthetics of the course with the additional ocean aesthetic.
Your discussion seems to try to deny that golf is played in nature and the aesthetics of nature are a significant part of the architecture.

the water comes into play, or at least must be dealt with, often. It is not really in play on 4 or 5, I can see the argument where it is not in play on 6 and 7, though I think it is off the tee, water is in play on 8 and 9, a little bit on 10, not on 17 and certainly in play on 18.

On holes  4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17 and 18 the ocean is a hazard

I do wish you people who play Pebble Beach could actually figure out what was there. Patrick's constant Have you played .. depends on it.

Garland its called opinion. The ocean on 17 is about 15 yards away from the green, either long or left of the back portion of the green. Add to that there are bunkers both long and left of the green and I feel the ocean does not really do anything to affect the play of this hole. But that is my opinion. If Patrick wants to believe that it is a hazard and an integral part of the hole, that's fine, I can see his reasoning, even if I don't totally agree with it.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

I hope this thread can get back on track.

Ciao

Sean we're not exactly off track, we've just warped ahead to another topic. I would prefer to keep the discussion on the merits of the individual holes for now, hopefully people can do that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()