[Brad Tufts]

My home course, Tedesco in Marblehead, MA, once had 36 holes, consisting of a full 18 and two separate nines.  One of theses nines was interchanged with holes from the current 18 to make an alternate 18 that was in play during our brief 36-hole period from 1931 to 1936.

One of the new holes opening for play in 1931 was a slightly uphill par three of about 180 yards that played as a dogleg in miniature, with a fairway that circumvented a vast sandy area from left to right, allowing the shorter hitter an alternative out to the left as opposed to the long carry directly over the sandy waste area.  Sadly, the hole no longer exists today.

The Boston Globe wrote a near-comical promotional article about the hole just after its opening, comparing it to "the 3rd hole at the new Pebble Beach course in Del Monte, CA."  There are further references to PBGL recently hosting the '29 US Amateur, the real hole at PB being "much longer" than Tedesco's par three of 180, and the natural bunkering looks similar to what I have seen and heard discussed about PB's original natural bunkering.

So, what is my question?  There are no holes on the current PB course that fit the comparison, even if one of then was originally the 3rd hole.  Only one current PB par three is long enough from any tee to be "much longer" than 180, #17, but I don't think this hole was ever a strategic par three curving around a hazard (although I could certainly be wrong).  What DOES resemble Tedesco's short-lived par three is #16 at CPC...strategic par three curving around a hazard from left to right, much longer than 180, and the hole was in play in 1931.  One might even surmise that a writer familiar with one new buzzworthy Monterey Peninsula-area course would have been familiar with the other as well.  Could the article-writer a country away from CA be mixing up his courses, and be talking about CPC?  Was the current #16 at CPC ever hole #3, maybe only after some holes were constructed?  If the CPC theory doesn't fit, was there a PB par three that was ever #3 in the routing that could have fit the comparison?

Or was this guy just clueless and just thought the hole looked like PB and didn't know the sequencing at all?

Any ideas?? Historians unite!!

[Alex Miller]

I am not a historian, but are we sure the hole it's being compared to is a par 3?

The 3rd at Pebble, as you probably know, is a dogleg left par 4 that at one time may very well have had a hazard on it's left side (it has trees and farther left a small baranca now).

Also the 18th was once a short par 4 of ~320 yards, so if the hazard must be water, well there's on of the only dogleg lefts around water I know if in that area.

Hope those ideas help!

[Kevin_Reilly]

#3 at PB has always been a par 4, and its distance in the early years (depending on source) ranged from 255 to 380.  It was 355 for the '29 Amateur.  Egan added a new tee that had lengthened the hole by 25 yards.

[Brad Tufts]

Right, that is what I suspected about #3 at PB.  If it was always a dogleg left par four, then #3 could not have been what the author was referencing.

The par three described above at Tedesco looks like a dogleg RIGHT in miniature, even though it was only 180 yards long.  We would theoretically be looking for holes that go the opposite way that PB #3 does.

I know I am assuming the author was incorrect for this entire line of questioning, but I couldn't imagine how a "dogleg left around a depression" par four could be compared to a left-to-right par three with wild "natural" sand hazards.  The two holes are wildly different.

Was CPC #15 or #16 ever #3 in the routing, maybe during construction when only some holes were open?  #3 at CPC is a par three, but it plays straight on.

[Adam Clayman]

Brad, I wouldn't describe the 3rd at Pebble as a dog leg left. Especially from a more forward teeing ground.

From what you describe, the similar strategy, to the NLE hole at your course, would be to want to stay left, so the player could take advantage of the  length of green.

Sure it's a stretch, and it's much more likely this reporter was full of sheit.

[Jason Thurman]

Wasn't the old 5th at Pebble a dogleg par 3? I've never seen it, even in photos, but it seems like an obvious potential candidate.

[Matthew Petersen]

Wasn't the old 5th at Pebble a dogleg par 3? I've never seen it, even in photos, but it seems like an obvious potential candidate.

Not sure if I ever heard it referred to as a dogleg, necessarily. It was certainly blind and in later years there was serious tree encroachment ... but I doubt that would have been the case in the 20s

[Jason Thurman]

If you do a forum search for "dogleg par 3" (including the quotes), about 40% of the results are in reference to the old 5th.

[Brad Tufts]

Yeah, the more I think about it...the whole thing doesn't make sense.

I use "dogleg par three" only as a descriptor...when the strategy seemed to be identical to that of #16 at CPC, albeit a shorter hole.

I want to say the guy was full of it, and was really talking comparing it to #16 at CPC, but I'm doubting that is the explanation.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Yeah, the more I think about it...the whole thing doesn't make sense.

I use "dogleg par three" only as a descriptor...when the strategy seemed to be identical to that of #16 at CPC, albeit a shorter hole.

I want to say the guy was full of it, and was really talking comparing it to #16 at CPC, but I'm doubting that is the explanation.

The 5th at Pebble isn't long enough to fit the "much longer" description either.

[Brad Tufts]

Right, and viewing an old aerial or two...the old 5 looks almost like an island green in its surroundings...not much in the way of options to avoid a carry.

Might have to get/post the actual picture and article to see what you all think.

[Adam Clayman]

Calling the old 5th a dogleg was an esoteric joke. The tree encroachment from the left made hitting a fade, almost impossible.

I suspect this reporter was guilty of what many posters are guilty of; Name dropping.

[Brad Tufts]

Picture in question:



Article, with another clue I forgot...."Unlike the original in CA, which is slightly longer, sand landlocks the green instead of water...."



Does this change any opinions?  

It looks like CPC #16 to me in shape, which is the reason for this entire exercise...but who knows!

[Michael Essig]

Could the author be speaking about one of the holes at Monterey Peninsula CC?  I have never played either course, but what about the 14th at the Dunes Course?

[Brad Tufts]

We'll probably never know...but the hole at MPCC may be a possibility.

My current thought process is that the author could be talking about PB #17.  Getting the hole # incorrect would be one small mistake, whereas getting the hole #/course/tournament reference, etc. wrong would be many mistakes.

I'm inclined to believe one small mistake instead of several at once.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()