[Michael Moore]

two fellows being killed when they drove over the cliff on # 8 on a foggy day.

When did this happen?

[JESII]

Pat,

I played Pebble Beach twice, Spyglass Hill twice and two very good local (Philadelphia) course for a grand total of about $150 (plus travel) in the 1999 US Amateur so cost isn't an issue in my opinion.

I was underwhelmed by Pebble Beach.

At the time, I was caddying every day at Pine Valley so I'll admit to a skewed perspective but those two courses do not belong in the same conversation. Pebble is great, and not many people would sincerely argue that...but it's not a contender for the title.

About half the holes are all world and about half could be found on any Doak 6 or 7 around.

#1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: Let's forget price versus access and compare PB to ANGC.  Here are two courses that we have all seen on TV and perhaps in person but may not have played and so I ask the question: Looking at PB how many holes are out there that I really want to play because they are so outstanding - a few.  On the other hand, I look at ANGC and ask myself the same question and I immediately say a whole bunch.  After I played Pacific Dunes I couldn't wait to get out there and play many of those holes again. Sure, PB has some great holes but I don't feel that it is on my bucket list of courses to play.  Add into that the fact that if I was out there I would want to play Spyglass as well and it becomes so expensive with accommodations that it borders on obscene. 

[Mike Hendren]

This crowd complaining about green fees is like the Union Army complaining about the price of bullets.

Bogey

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jerry,

Cost isn't a factor when evaluating the architectural merits of a golf course.

As to your comments, the comparison of PB to ANGC is skewed, seriously skewed.
ANGC is an annual event that's been orchestrated to view well, from dyed water to camera angles to floral presentations, etc., etc.


Pat: Let's forget price versus access and compare PB to ANGC. 
Here are two courses that we have all seen on TV and perhaps in person but may not have played and so I ask the question:

Looking at PB how many holes are out there that I really want to play because they are so outstanding - a few. 

Which ones ?

On the other hand, I look at ANGC and ask myself the same question and I immediately say a whole bunch. 

Which ones ?

After I played Pacific Dunes I couldn't wait to get out there and play many of those holes again.

AFTER you played

Sure, PB has some great holes but I don't feel that it is on my bucket list of courses to play. 

You never played the course, so how would you know ?

Add into that the fact that if I was out there I would want to play Spyglass as well and it becomes so expensive with accommodations that it borders on obscene. 

That's not the issue.

[Patrick_Mucci]

two fellows being killed when they drove over the cliff on # 8 on a foggy day.

When did this happen?

BEFORE they put in the high curbs on the cart paths

[Michael Moore]

BEFORE they put in the high curbs on the cart paths

I mean what year did this happen? Why are there no newspaper accounts of this spectacular accident? Why does the resort deny that this ever happened?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If this discussion is about Pebble Beach's design/architecture, how is the green fee in any way relevant? 

David,

It's not.

But, the MORONS on this site keep bringing it up

[Patrick_Mucci]

Also worthy of discussion is the impact of the Palmer Design changes for the last Open.  Given how bland and poorly conditioned many of the bunkers at PB were, I actually thought it was overall an improvement, even though I generally hate to see old courses changed a lot.  If you did it at CP (which they did, but tried to emulate the original style) it would be reviled, but here, I haven't heard much discussion.  Not to mention JN taking away the old dogleg par 3 fifth......

Is that a sign that the actual architecture of PB wasn't all that revered here, and elsewhere?

No, it's a sign that the land there is so valuable that it can't be allowed to go to waste.

In general, I agree with the ocean holes great, inland holes average POV, however, I always liked 2 for some reason.

I think that 2 and 3 are very good holes and that # 4 is a GREAT short hole.
I can't believe that anyone thinks it's mediocre.
Ditto 5, how can that be considered a mediocre hole ?

[Jerry Kluger]

My perspective isn't based upon beauty but based upon what I have seen on TV and the discussions about strategy, hole locations, fairway lies, recovery shots, etc. and to me, what I have come to conclude is that ANGC is a far more interesting golf course with so much more thought needed to play the course. Just take the greens: PB has very small greens which do pose challenges in playing the course but certainly the greens at ANGC are far more interesting. ANGC doesn't have the views that PB does but that has nothing to do with the quality of the architecture of the course.

[Paul Jones]

Pebble Beach is a course that I want to play again.  The first time I played it (10+ years ago) - I was highly disappointed in the first few holes, Not because they were bad holes, just not what I expected and I was anxiously awaiting the famous holes.  The same for some of the holes on the back nine.  I was 1 under after 7 holes and didn't break 80, I am sure that had something to do with me not liking some of the holes on the back nine since the wind picked up, the play was extremely slow and my game went south  .

I like the idea of teeing off first and being able to play in under 4 hours.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

It is very very hard to find a golf course that doesnt have at least one 'weak" hole, at least in the mind of those playing the course.
"Weak'  may vary from player to player and on another course may not even be considered a weak hole.
Reading this thread got me thinking about any courses that in my opinion didnt have at least one hole that is retrospect I thought "let the course" down.
I started at my favourite ten courses and considered if any holes on those courses I felt was less than at least a 7.
These were my results..
Sunningdale New....no holes less than a 7
Pine Valley..same
Cypress Point...same
Ballyneal...same

Other than those courses I couldnt find one.
Several had one hole deficits...Sand Hills/Royal Birkdale/Merion/Pacific Dunes

So why is this relatie to this thread,?
Pebble Beach is marvelous, but no course could have 18 holes the calibre of that stretch from 7-10

[Patrick_Mucci]

MWP,

Where's the love for 4, 5 and 6 ?

17 & 18 ?

I happen to think that 3 is a terrific hole, don't see how anyone can call it a "weak" hole.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Love #4 in fact one of my favourites, 17/18 go without saying I just mentioned that run of 7-10 in particular as a point.
If pressed I would not give #3,13 or 15 a 7/10 but then again I would give 4/8/9/10/12/17/18 all 9/10 or above and I cannot think of many courses that yield that many great holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

MWP,

I think 2 and 3 are terrific holes, great for amateurs from zero to 24 handicaps.

11 is a terrific hole as well, and so are 13, 14, 15 and 16.

12 is good, but, there's something about it that people don't warm up to.

[ChipRoyce]

PB is a great golfing experience, but (and know this will draw the Ire of PB fanboys), I don't think it is a great course.

PB is on incredible real estate, breathtaking views.

It has a number of world-class holes that take advantage of the proximity to the water and those views (holes: 8,9,10,17(?)).

I'll also concede that it has a few great holes that are quirky but IMHO are hidden gems: 3, 4, 16

However, it has a number of benign, uninteresting holes that take away from comparisons to the truly great courses.

(BTW - I'm waiting for someone to say 18 is a Great golf hole for its architectural merits). Its an easy par from the back tees but at best a challenging birdie hole for the pros).

[JLahrman]

After playing Pebble several times as a kid, I last played there in 1978 when the green fee was $65 and I carried my clubs. 

I'm really not interested in playing there again, with the astronomical green fees and continuous cart paths with curbs. 

Bill,

You can walk the course with a caddy.

The continous cart paths are due to two fellows being killed when they drove over the cliff on # 8 on a foggy day.


The great memories are sufficient. 

You can walk and carry; I did it last year.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

MWP,

I think 2 and 3 are terrific holes, great for amateurs from zero to 24 handicaps.

11 is a terrific hole as well, and so are 13, 14, 15 and 16.

12 is good, but, there's something about it that people don't warm up to.

Patrick.
I am not saying they are not okay holes, 2/3 that is but for example to me they are not as good as any of the holes at GCGC of similar length.
Number 4 OR 17 at GC are better than 2 at PB and clearlu 35 at GC is better than either 3 or 15 at PB but none of those holes at GC would be considered by most as the courses' outstanding holes...well number 4 maybe.

I just think that 2/3/15 are relative weak holes and when I have played them{about a dozen times}do not excite me much at all.

Of course it is all relative and again the other 14 or 15 are very very good.
I am with you on #11 love it, that second shot is brutal!!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

PB is a great golfing experience, but (and know this will draw the Ire of PB fanboys), I don't think it is a great course.

PB is on incredible real estate, breathtaking views.

It has a number of world-class holes that take advantage of the proximity to the water and those views (holes: 8,9,10,17(?)).

I'll also concede that it has a few great holes that are quirky but IMHO are hidden gems: 3, 4, 16

However, it has a number of benign, uninteresting holes that take away from comparisons to the truly great courses.

(BTW - I'm waiting for someone to say 18 is a Great golf hole for its architectural merits).
Its an easy par from the back tees but at best a challenging birdie hole for the pros).

Chip,

I always thought that 18 was an easy hole until I played it, after which, I came to a different conclusion.

Exactly who is it easy for ?

How many times have you played it ?

[Richard Hetzel]

That same 1978 $65, adjusted for inflation is approximately $233. PB definitely has the successful business model if they are getting twice that , or more and always have a full tee sheet!

I am sure by the time I get around to playing it, it will be in the $600 range.

I agree that the greens fee has nothing to do with a course's architectural merit (or the lack thereof), but if you walk away unastonished by the round, you will equate that course to a lack of "value" because you will naturally equate your golfing experience to what you paid.

[Pat Burke]

Well, since I lived in the land of the spoiled, I never had to pay to play Pebble!

From the time the California Amateur was played there, through 5 AT&T, and one US Open (92),
I have always loved Pebble.
I have not played since the new #5 was built though.  I really did not like the old #5.
One was a comfortable start.
2 was a fun 1/2 shot par 5.  Second was harder than it looked I thought.
3 was a solid short par 4, requiring good control on the approach shot
4 is a great short par 4 with a nasty little green.
5 don't know
6 A good tee shot, especially with the fairway extended to the cliff.  Going for the green
   was a frightening shot, but it was very difficult to lay-up in the correct spot.  
7 I hit as much as 7 iron to, but it is just a cool little pitch
8-10 is a great stretch of holes, requiring osme very precise shots.
11.  Was very hard for me to get my tee shot far enough left for a good angle IN to the green slope
12 I never liked
13 was so important in tournaments to get the tee shot left, in order to use the green slope on the approach
14.  I was amazed at how far right I could hit the tee shot!  The approach requires amazing precision.
15 used to be a difficult tee shot before the tree.  The green is very tough to read
16 was always a challenge in the tee shot for me.  
17 would be awesome if the green was recaptured.  
18 Every shot requires focus

Now, I'm approaching this from tournament level, but every amateur I played with in the tournament loved the place.
BTW, I still like CPC more, but Pebble is in my top 5 or 6 that I've played fwiw

[Mike Hendren]

Patrick, I like 3 as well but the new fairway bunkers diminish it in my opinion by providing a distinct aiming point for the drive and an easier approach for the better player who finds them from the tee.  That green was previously impossible to hit from the hillside rough if one drove through the fairway.

Bogey

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Patrick, I like 3 as well but the new fairway bunkers diminish it in my opinion by providing a distinct aiming point for the drive and an easier approach for the better player who finds them from the tee.  That green was previously impossible to hit from the hillside rough if one drove through the fairway.

Bogey

+1

[Patrick_Mucci]

That same 1978 $65, adjusted for inflation is approximately $233. PB definitely has the successful business model if they are getting twice that , or more and always have a full tee sheet!

I am sure by the time I get around to playing it, it will be in the $600 range.

I agree that the greens fee has nothing to do with a course's architectural merit (or the lack thereof), but if you walk away unastonished by the round, you will equate that course to a lack of "value" because you will naturally equate your golfing experience to what you paid.
Richard,

If you walk away, "unastonished by the round" you belong playing tennis, not golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Agree with EVERYTHING you say, with a small caveat.

I have to admit that I think the new # 5 is an improvement over the old, which I kinda liked, and architecturally consistant with the rest of the course.

On # 12, I don't dislike the hole, but, there's something about it that seems amiss.
Maybe it's the distance it plays from.
Maybe it should be shorter, in the 160 or so range.


Well, since I lived in the land of the spoiled, I never had to pay to play Pebble!

From the time the California Amateur was played there, through 5 AT&T, and one US Open (92),
I have always loved Pebble.
I have not played since the new #5 was built though.  I really did not like the old #5.
One was a comfortable start.
2 was a fun 1/2 shot par 5.  Second was harder than it looked I thought.
3 was a solid short par 4, requiring good control on the approach shot
4 is a great short par 4 with a nasty little green.
5 don't know
6 A good tee shot, especially with the fairway extended to the cliff.  Going for the green
   was a frightening shot, but it was very difficult to lay-up in the correct spot.  
7 I hit as much as 7 iron to, but it is just a cool little pitch
8-10 is a great stretch of holes, requiring osme very precise shots.
11.  Was very hard for me to get my tee shot far enough left for a good angle IN to the green slope
12 I never liked
13 was so important in tournaments to get the tee shot left, in order to use the green slope on the approach
14.  I was amazed at how far right I could hit the tee shot!  The approach requires amazing precision.
15 used to be a difficult tee shot before the tree.  The green is very tough to read
16 was always a challenge in the tee shot for me.  
17 would be awesome if the green was recaptured.  
18 Every shot requires focus

Now, I'm approaching this from tournament level, but every amateur I played with in the tournament loved the place.
BTW, I still like CPC more, but Pebble is in my top 5 or 6 that I've played fwiw

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()