[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Dugger,

I agree with you.

Jamie,

Might it be a better comparison if you compared, in their order of appearance, holes of like par ?

Like # 2 at PB to # 3 at PD ?

[Alex Miller]

For me the hole-by-hole on these two courses isn't a great way to evaluate or compare them. I have Pebble slightly higher than Pac overall with both in my top ten, but I'd say that Pebble probably has at least 4 holes that I like better than any hole at PD (6, 7, 8, and 18 for sure), but then Pebble also has most of the weaker holes overall, so a straight 1/1, 2/2 comparison will depend more on which Pebble hole happens to be up because none of the holes at PD are going to beat Pebble #8 for me, but all of them would beat #15, etc.

They really are very different, but very special, courses. It doesn't get much better than either one. And technically I like Trails a smidge better than PD just for best at Bandon!

Get out of my head!

[Alex Miller]

Michael Dugger,

I agree with you.

Jamie,

Might it be a better comparison if you compared, in their order of appearance, holes of like par ?

Like # 2 at PB to # 3 at PD ?

That doesn't work as well since there are 5 par 5s and 5 par 3s at PD.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jamie - I don't know what it is about your proposed comparison that has put many an esteemed poster into a grumpy mood.  Goodness knows there's been probably a hundred similar comparisons made around here in the past, i.e. hole by hole match play between two great courses -- and I don't remember many people getting up in arms about it or complaining about differing Pars being pitted against each other.  Maybe there is so much love for Pebble and Pacific no one wants to see a 'loser'. Anyway - from your posts you seem like a knowledgable and opinionated fellow who writes clearly...so please continue on with your analysis.  I'll have to watch from the sidelines, but I think it will be worthwhile.

Peter

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Michael Dugger,

I agree with you.

Jamie,

Might it be a better comparison if you compared, in their order of appearance, holes of like par ?

Like # 2 at PB to # 3 at PD ?

That doesn't work as well since there are 5 par 5s and 5 par 3s at PD.

So...unless the scorecard has changed since being published on the Bandon website there are only 4 par 5's at Pacific Dunes...or is my reading failing me as it sometimes does?


Mr. Mucci I may do that, but I kind of doubt it. 2 is a great par 5, BTW, if you consider how it was designed to be played, and not how it plays in actuality today for the longer players.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jamie,

We are not off to a good start when it comes to assessing Pebble Beach!

I never saw the 2nd hole as anything special. What makes it "great" in your eyes?

My rule back in the 1980s was to base my second shot on whether I hit the fairway with my drive. If so, I could easily carry the hazard. If not, I would lay back.

Ok, not bad, but I never thought of it as great. Also, my recollection is that the green was fine, but again special.

[Alex Miller]

Michael Dugger,

I agree with you.

Jamie,

Might it be a better comparison if you compared, in their order of appearance, holes of like par ?

Like # 2 at PB to # 3 at PD ?

That doesn't work as well since there are 5 par 5s and 5 par 3s at PD.

So...unless the scorecard has changed since being published on the Bandon website there are only 4 par 5's at Pacific Dunes...or is my reading failing me as it sometimes does?


Mr. Mucci I may do that, but I kind of doubt it. 2 is a great par 5, BTW, if you consider how it was designed to be played, and not how it plays in actuality today for the longer players.

My memory failed me.

[Sean_A]

I agree with Pietro.  There is no reason to get one's knickers in a twist.  Besides, in competent hands, anything is comparable to anything else.  I know many feel certain courses can't be compared, but courses have a lot in common so I don't see why not.  Sure the 1 V 1 method can produce flawed results, but it also helps one to critically evaluate the merits of a hole.  I know when I do these sorts of things I start out with inherent assumptions.  1. The good par 5 is the hardest hole to design.  So when I come across a good par 5 I tend to want to see something extraordinary to beat it.  2.  The good par 3 is the easiest hole to build and a chance for the archie to really be creative.  Therefore, I am not terribly forgiving about dull 3s.  3. A hole which uses a mediocre part of the property very well will get extra props.  4. Creative use of trees will get extra props.  5. Creative use of OOB will get extra props.  There are more things I particularly look at, but the above criteria are the starting points because a huge percentage of holes fail on these counts.  Almost every course I play has some wonderful bunkers, greens and water etc, so I am inclined to look at those as secondary or more as part of the overall design. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Dugger,

I agree with you.

Jamie,

Might it be a better comparison if you compared, in their order of appearance, holes of like par ?

Like # 2 at PB to # 3 at PD ?

That doesn't work as well since there are 5 par 5s and 5 par 3s at PD.

Is that an inherent flaw in the design of the golf course ? 

In terms of structure, for comparison's sake, does that give Pebble Beach an advantage before the hole by hole comparison begins ?

To me, they're both great golf courses and hole by hole comparisons are usually individually biased and useless.

But, continue if you will   

[Michael Dugger]

Peter,

I hope you are not wiggling a finger in my direction in regards to your comments on this thread.  

I don't think I took a grumpy tone.  Is a contra opinion not acceptable around here any longer?

As for the comparison.  Pac takes #1, #2, #3 and it's awfully close on #4.  

#5 is a classic example of why this type of exercise is wacky.  Are you the type of player who likes a small green hugging the coast, or do you fancy a big green with multiple pin placements set amongst a whimsical dunes backdrop?  On one of the holes, Pebble 5, you basically sink or swim, another, Pacific 5, allows all sorts of options including starting your ball a mile left and letting it hug the contours and trickle in towards the flagstick.

Some like the sink or swim and exacting nature of the target golf type small green.  

Others don't, and I don't care if the golf hole resides in heaven itself, no amount of scenery or "ambiance" is going to make up for a hole lacking options.

[Peter Pallotta]

"Wiggling a finger.."  -- ha, ha, good phrase, Michael.

No, not really - just genuinely surprised at how quickly folks pointed out the problems of such a comparison -- 1) because as I mentioned, folks have been doing exactly the same thing around here for years, and 2) because as Sean says, in capable hands anything can be compared to anything else.  But mostly, I posted because I wanted to hear what Jamie had to say -- and you, and others. For example, I find interesting that you'd give Pac the first 3 holes in match play.  Aha! So you DO find this match-play compelling after all...

Peter

[Michael Dugger]

No, Peter, I don't think it will be too compelling.  It is going to come down to do you favor options (gca manifesto) or do you favor exacting tests (Nicklaus / Matt Ward school)

[Dan Kelly]

No, Peter, I don't think it will be too compelling.  It is going to come down to do you favor options (gca manifesto) or do you favor exacting tests (Nicklaus / Matt Ward school)

Michael --

I've yet to see Pacific Dunes. I'm curious: Are there any exacting, option-free shots on the course?

Dan

P.S. Is a golf course merely a collection of holes? This entire hole-by-hole, boxing-style golf-bout thing has always struck me as strange. It seems to me that a great golf course, however you define it, is more than the sum of its holes.

[Richard Choi]

What I am wary about this particular comparison is that it feels like the OP has made up his mind that PB is better than PD (which is perfectly reasonable) and is fitting the results of the hole-by-hole match to fit that result instead of other way round (which is not reasonable).

I mean, saying that #1 PD vs #1 PB is a draw says the fix is in.

P.S. I am saying this in the most lighthearted way possible. This is an opinion piece and Jamie can express his. This is all just for little fun...

[Sean Leary]

What I am wary about this particular comparison is that it feels like the OP has made up his mind that PB is better than PD (which is perfectly reasonable) and is fitting the results of the hole-by-hole match to fit that result instead of other way round (which is not reasonable).

I mean, saying that #1 PD vs #1 PB is a draw says the fix is in.

P.S. I am saying this in the most lighthearted way possible. This is an opinion piece and Jamie can express his. This is all just for little fun...

As I play the back tees, I like the 1st holes to be a bit of a breather when possible. PB is a bit of a breather, PD is not. Its the hardest driving hole on the course, especially with the prevailing wind.. On architectural merits alone PD is better, but as a first hole, I like PB just as much so I don't have a problem with him calling it a draw especially with the history factor of where you are.

[Jud_T]

I've yet to see Pacific Dunes. I'm curious: Are there any exacting, option-free shots on the course?

yes,
 
Approach on 6, 11 tee, but forget this nonsense and book a flight!

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

No, Peter, I don't think it will be too compelling.  It is going to come down to do you favor options (gca manifesto) or do you favor exacting tests (Nicklaus / Matt Ward school)

I would say that there are just as many options on most of the holes at Pebble Beach as at Pacific Dunes. And certainly angles make a difference hitting into those tiny greens at Pebble.

Mr. Tigerman the second shot on 6 at Pacific has several options, all set-up by where you tee shot winds up.

Mr. Mucci I would not consider the oddity of the holes and par at Pacific Dunes to be an inherent flaw, far from it. And no, it does not give Pebble an advantage.

[Tim Bert]

Jamie - Can you clarify if the essay you are working is a full compare / contrast of the two courses or if the essay is simply the aggregation of your comments of each of the 18 holes you are going to post here?  Your comments on the comparison of the first holes were very brief.  Dont think it would give much flavor to anyone that hasn't played both courses but maybe that isn't the intent. Just trying to figure out if that's the first hole entry to the essay you reference in your original post or if this is just a separate exercise as you write a broader essay comparing and contrasting the two courses. 

[Michael Dugger]

No, Peter, I don't think it will be too compelling.  It is going to come down to do you favor options (gca manifesto) or do you favor exacting tests (Nicklaus / Matt Ward school)

I would say that there are just as many options on most of the holes at Pebble Beach as at Pacific Dunes. And certainly angles make a difference hitting into those tiny greens at Pebble.

Mr. Tigerman the second shot on 6 at Pacific has several options, all set-up by where you tee shot winds up.

Mr. Mucci I would not consider the oddity of the holes and par at Pacific Dunes to be an inherent flaw, far from it. And no, it does not give Pebble an advantage.

"Just as many?"  That's simply not true.

Let me ask you this, can you run the ball into the green on the 7th at Pebble, or perhaps the 8th?  How about the 14th, or the 16th?  17th perhaps?

Moreover, in how many instances is it a BETTER option than flying your ball all the way to the stick?

Show me the golf hole at Pebble Beach that has the crumpled rumpled ground like you find ALL OVER at Pacific Dunes.

How often does Pebble Beach play fast and firm?  In the winter, when those poa greens are wet, how much does the ball roll?   

[Jordan Wall]

Let me ask you this, can you run the ball into the green on the 7th at Pebble, or perhaps the 8th?  How about the 14th, or the 16th?  17th perhaps?

Show me the golf hole at Pebble Beach that has the crumpled rumpled ground like you find ALL OVER at Pacific Dunes.
  

Michael,

You can't run the ball up to every hole at Pacific, either.

And, I wasn't aware that crumpled ground makes for a great golf course. 

Have you ever seen or played Pebble?

[Garland Bayley]

And, I wasn't aware that crumpled ground makes for a great golf course. 

Well Jordan, I guess you learn something new every day, now don't you.

[Michael Dugger]

Let me ask you this, can you run the ball into the green on the 7th at Pebble, or perhaps the 8th?  How about the 14th, or the 16th?  17th perhaps?

Show me the golf hole at Pebble Beach that has the crumpled rumpled ground like you find ALL OVER at Pacific Dunes.
  

Michael,

You can't run the ball up to every hole at Pacific, either.

And, I wasn't aware that crumpled ground makes for a great golf course. 

Have you ever seen or played Pebble?

Jordan,

I didn't say you could run the ball up to every hole at Pacific, but you sure can on a whole lot of them.  Far more than at Pebble.  And as I mentioned in the second part of my point, whether you can or you can't, it only matters if it is beneficial.  Pebble is far more of a target golf course.

And that's really about all I have to say to your input.

Look, I'm not saying Pebble is a bad course.  Far from, it's magical, one of the finest in the land.

But it's sooo different from Pacific Dunes.  Starting with the turf grass choices, extending to the crumpled, wild and wooly terrain, and finishing with the dramatic difference in greens.

One is a Lincoln Town Car, the other is a Mustang.  Both fit the bill nicely in their respective category.  Perhaps we should call it a sub category even.  Both are golf courses, but they play very differently.

[Kalen Braley]

And when you factor in price.....Pacific Dunes is a far better value!! 

[Jud_T]

Mr. Tigerman the second shot on 6 at Pacific has several options, all set-up by where you tee shot winds up.

Perhaps, but I'd say it's a pretty exacting shot...

This is actually a somewhat interesting discussion as it delineates fairly well the yin and yang of the the GCA brethren.  Is there anyone here who can honestly say that they don't have a clear personal favorite between the two?

[Jordan Wall]

Let me ask you this, can you run the ball into the green on the 7th at Pebble, or perhaps the 8th?  How about the 14th, or the 16th?  17th perhaps?

Show me the golf hole at Pebble Beach that has the crumpled rumpled ground like you find ALL OVER at Pacific Dunes.
  

Michael,

You can't run the ball up to every hole at Pacific, either.

And, I wasn't aware that crumpled ground makes for a great golf course. 

Have you ever seen or played Pebble?

Jordan,

I didn't say you could run the ball up to every hole at Pacific, but you sure can on a whole lot of them.  Far more than at Pebble.  And as I mentioned in the second part of my point, whether you can or you can't, it only matters if it is beneficial.  Pebble is far more of a target golf course.

And that's really about all I have to say to your input.

Look, I'm not saying Pebble is a bad course.  Far from, it's magical, one of the finest in the land.

But it's sooo different from Pacific Dunes.  Starting with the turf grass choices, extending to the crumpled, wild and wooly terrain, and finishing with the dramatic difference in greens.

One is a Lincoln Town Car, the other is a Mustang.  Both fit the bill nicely in their respective category.  Perhaps we should call it a sub category even.  Both are golf courses, but they play very differently.

So, back to my question.  Have you seen or played Pebble?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()