How can a layman understand routing?

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

then you just might be the most fortunate man ever to be in the biz!

No, seriously, while big egos are the norm, most of us do a pretty good job of tucking those down pretty well.

 

[Tom_Doak]

[re:  Pebble Beach]

Well, the first thing is, they would all try to get as many ocean holes as possible. I would bet most would try to put them on the hook side, however.

It's clear real estate drove even that project, but luckily, they thought golf/ocean views were okay

That's a great example of a rule leading to a different design.

To me, if you had routed 8-9-10 in the other direction, you'd have to be blind.  The difference is the view playing downhill TOWARD Carmel vs. the view playing back uphill away from it.  Perhaps they could have played 6-5-4 backwards without as big a loss, but it would have been pretty hard to make a crossover - connection out there on top of the bluff.

I've always thought the routing of Pebble was underrated.  I'm not a big fan of some of the inland holes like #1 and #12, but mostly because of the feature work.  2, 3 and 16 are all built around great natural features by someone paying attention in the routing phase.

[Mike_Young]

[re:  Pebble Beach]

Well, the first thing is, they would all try to get as many ocean holes as possible. I would bet most would try to put them on the hook side, however.

It's clear real estate drove even that project, but luckily, they thought golf/ocean views were okay

That's a great example of a rule leading to a different design.

To me, if you had routed 8-9-10 in the other direction, you'd have to be blind.  The difference is the view playing downhill TOWARD Carmel vs. the view playing back uphill away from it.  Perhaps they could have played 6-5-4 backwards without as big a loss, but it would have been pretty hard to make a crossover - connection out there on top of the bluff.

I've always thought the routing of Pebble was underrated.  I'm not a big fan of some of the inland holes like #1 and #12, but mostly because of the feature work.  2, 3 and 16 are all built around great natural features by someone paying attention in the routing phase.

As for PB...14 just doesn't fit my eye....I've always thought 13 could have been extended and 14 become an uphill 4par ....but ....again just an opinion...

[Bill_McBride]

[re:  Pebble Beach]

Well, the first thing is, they would all try to get as many ocean holes as possible. I would bet most would try to put them on the hook side, however.

It's clear real estate drove even that project, but luckily, they thought golf/ocean views were okay

That's a great example of a rule leading to a different design.

To me, if you had routed 8-9-10 in the other direction, you'd have to be blind.  The difference is the view playing downhill TOWARD Carmel vs. the view playing back uphill away from it.  Perhaps they could have played 6-5-4 backwards without as big a loss, but it would have been pretty hard to make a crossover - connection out there on top of the bluff.

I've always thought the routing of Pebble was underrated.  I'm not a big fan of some of the inland holes like #1 and #12, but mostly because of the feature work.  2, 3 and 16 are all built around great natural features by someone paying attention in the routing phase.

Is Pebble the best figure-8 routing ever?    Pretty ingenious.