News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Patrick_Mucci

You have to wonder if
« on: February 10, 2013, 12:47:32 PM »
Pebble Beach was designed, retaining the same basic routing, but in reverse, would it be regarded as well as it is today ?

I've always been fascinated by TOC and the knowledge that the course currently plays in a reverse order from the original.
I've always wanted to play the original (reverse)

How would Pebble Beach fare in reverse ?

And WHY ?

Jeff Bertch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2013, 01:18:27 PM »
I think there would be some very interesting holes in reverse. The main problem is that PB best stretch of holes would become very weak (or at least weaker than current version).

For example:

#6 would be a somewhat blind tee shot although downhill
#7 is perfect downhill...not so sure it would be good uphill
#8 would be an impossible carry up the hill

There would be some really interesting holes though:

#17 would be able to use the coastline more
#14 as a hard dogleg left par 5

Water on the right on #18...left on #9 and #10

**the biggest con would be the fact that the course would finish away from the ocean

you know...a caddie, a looper, a jock

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2013, 01:33:34 PM »
I was thinking about this yesterday, Patrick.

I think that 1-3 and 17,18 are fairly set in stone, but you could begin a reverse routing playing back up 16 all the way around through 4. This would avoid the biggest con that Mr. Bertch mentioned.


There are a couple points where the reverse routing just wouldn't work nearly as well as what is currently there. 6,7,8 is routed just about as well as possible in my estimation.

Playing 8 the other way you would have a blind approach and a tee shot that would punish shorter players, though it would still be a cool hole.

7 up the hill would be ok, but the player would be facing away from the water and views and likely to another putting surface they couldn't see.

6 could have a very cool tee shot down the hill (but semi-blind), but again it would be very challenging for the short hitter to get the ball down to the lower fairway. Also playing an approach to where the 6th tee is currently would pinch the playing corridor for "reverse 14" coming back down the hill. Currently the 6th tee takes up a lot less room than a green would.

5 could work in reverse.

4 would be ocean-adjacent off the tee, but the green would be pinched by the yacht club on the left and the views would be limited.

10 and 9 would probably be fine in reverse, but those are great holes now too.

One other problem that arises from preserving 1-3 and 17,18 is that every ocean hole is on the left.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2013, 01:35:12 PM by Alex Miller »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2013, 01:46:36 PM »
Alex & Jeff,

I'm a little puzzled by your comments on # 8.

The golfer could elect to clear the cliff on their drive or go right and not confront that feature.

So I don't see why using a driver to get to the DZ is more difficult than hitting a 3-wood or iron from that DZ to the current green.

What am I missing ?

Gib_Papazian

Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2013, 01:50:51 PM »
In reverse, 75% of the amateurs would start out their rounds with a ritual sacrifice of a couple Top Flites into the drink on the right. Of course, Phil took an 8 yesterday playing from the correct direction, so maybe Lefty would like the hole better the other way.

The holes that might actually be improved are:

#18., with a green hanging over the edge of the rocks. I can see a Sunday pin right next to the wooden fence and envision the 3rd shot being a bit scary. Going for the green in two would actually be more exciting than what is there now.

#14. could be reversed and nobody would notice. Both directions have a reverse-camber fairway and the tee shot might be more interesting from the current green.

#13. would be improved. I see the putting surface tucked in an intimate corner of the trees, much like #4 at Cypress.

#11. is a little nutty right now because the green has shrank and the front portion has fallen at least 2 degrees since I was a kid. The new hole would ask for a hard draw from the tee (which fits my eye of course); the backdrop for the approach (to the current 10th green) would be stunning.

#6. I'm on the fence about this, but if the wall of grass was shaved so shorter hitters could run their tee shots to the fairway below, it would be a reachable par-5 for at least 1/2 the players.

#5. There would be no difference in either direction given the topography, so I would not object.

#4. Definitely drivable from the tee, so there would have to be a horrendous collage of pots waiting for those who dare and miss. One could always scoot into the Beach Club for a drink after a triple-bogey I suppose. The bartenders don't spare the booze in there.

#2. As long as you dig a trench (which only affects amateurs), it would be similar - aside from losing much of the view from the green.

The rest of the course would be a bit of a slog, especially given the prevailing breeze. #9 and #10 would be more difficult and not as enjoyable, #7 would just plain suck. #12 is a duck at best in either direction. Maybe a slightly uphill modified-Biarritz given there is plenty of room to set the tee as far back as you want.

Spyglass would also be an interesting exercise. It is my father's favorite golf course in the world - and the old bird has seen enough on both sides of the pond to make that determination.

I love it myself - having played it quite a bit since childhood - but also see its many shortcomings. My best friend went to RLS, so every afternoon visit was running around the whiskey route. The world was more relaxed before the golf craze took hold. We had this game all to ourselves . . . . selfish thought, but still a shame.

If I had unlimited money, I would not reverse Spyglass, but move the clubhouse to the bottom of the hill and route the course in and out of the dunes. #1 would be an astounding finishing hole; let's work around that and see how things shake out. The current #17 and #18 are sort of marginal and (here I go with heresy) I'm arrogant enough to believe that Neal and I could drastically improve the golf course. #4 stays as it is of course, but with a little imagination Spyglass could stand up to Pebble.

In its current configuration - assuming you play from rational tees - I think Spyglass is actually easier than Pebble in many ways. Even when I was younger with a quasi-healthy back, I could not hit the ball up there with my peers. The beauty of Spyglass is that most every hole has a specific route that - if taken - keeps you on the par trail. Birdies are tougher, but if you dissect each one, there is a magic code to open the door.

Let's take #7 as an example. Everybody tries to blast a driver over the corner and then get to the green in two, right? Don't tell me that is not how you attacked it, because we both know you're lying. Now, standing there with 3-wood in hand, you did not want to yank it into the lake, so you hung it out to the right a bit and found your ball in the rough with a brutal pitch to a green sloping severely away.

"Whatever you may be sure of, be sure of this, that you are dreadfully like other people." - James Russell Lowell

Now, instead, let's take a 3-wood off the tee and hit short of the bunkers on the left. Pull out a 4-iron and hit it SHORT of the lake on the LEFT side of the fairway. Hmmmmm, now you have a simple, 90 yard pitch and can use the slope as a backstop to feed the ball right next to the pin. Most every hole offers a specific series of shots to insulate you from a train wreck - you just have to be disciplined enough to never, ever take the bait.

I could not figure out why the Pros used to whine about Spyglass; one would think the ability to dissect and analyze each hole would be 2nd nature, but maybe their egos got the better of them. As a matter of fact, from 6400 years (I cannot move the ball anymore), Spyglass is easier than Cypress by a long shot.    
« Last Edit: February 11, 2013, 12:02:28 AM by Gib Papazian »

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2013, 01:53:07 PM »
Alex & Jeff,

I'm a little puzzled by your comments on # 8.

The golfer could elect to clear the cliff on their drive or go right and not confront that feature.

So I don't see why using a driver to get to the DZ is more difficult than hitting a 3-wood or iron from that DZ to the current green.

What am I missing ?

Patrick,

The angle of the cliff on 8 means that if the player doesn't have a 170 yard carry (often into the wind) then they have to play so far right that the punishment may be too extreme. For the golfer who can carry it the hole would be about 400 yards. For the golfer who is already distance-challenge the route of play is closer to 470 yards.

Gib, you think 4 & 6 would be improved? I say no way!

Gib_Papazian

Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2013, 02:02:17 PM »
Alex,

I did not state the #4 and #6 would be "improved" necessarily, but that it would be possible to make some modifications to stand up with the rest of the course. For example, I cannot think of much that would make reversing #3 anything but a muni course hole. 

Jeff Bertch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2013, 02:12:54 PM »
Patrick,

I can buy into your thoughts on #8. I think it should be a risk reward par 5 though. Much too penal for the short hitter to go right. Pretty intimidating tee ball!



I'd love to give it a rip though.
you know...a caddie, a looper, a jock

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2013, 03:12:36 PM »
Alex & Jeff,

I'm a little puzzled by your comments on # 8.

The golfer could elect to clear the cliff on their drive or go right and not confront that feature.

So I don't see why using a driver to get to the DZ is more difficult than hitting a 3-wood or iron from that DZ to the current green.

What am I missing ?

Tee shot on 8 would be similar to the back tee on 16 at Black Diamond Ranch which is one I disliked immensely

Patrick_Mucci

Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2013, 07:15:34 PM »
Jeff,

Great photo, thanks

Wouldn't # 11 be a much better hole

Gib,

Agree,

# 18 as # 1 would ruin many a round before the first hole was over.

Brad Isaacs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2013, 07:32:48 PM »
IF number 1 was the 18th, I would bring it down to the water, In fact you could use the current 18th green sit.  Start with a par 4 along the water and end with a par 5 ending at the water.

14 does not get any easier with a reverse camber dog-leg left par 5, that still ends going uphill.

11 gets a whole lot better.  Keep #7 as is.

# 8 into a par 5? push it into number 6 and stretch the T box back into 9 current T box?   

Current nember 6 becaome a par 4 teeing off from  an elevated T box.

It could work pretty well.  You still have the beauty of the Peninsula.

B

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2013, 11:26:40 PM »
Guys...I've long lobbied here (search function whatever) about reversing the course after playing #8...then moving on to #13 in reverse and continuing in reverse thru  #9 , when one would continue back to the original #14...something I first envisioned when I was a greens keeper at PB in the early 70's...and realized Pebble wasn't all it could be.

Talk on....
« Last Edit: February 10, 2013, 11:43:40 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2013, 11:42:27 PM »
Guys...I've long lobbied here (search function whatever) about reversing #9 thru #13...something I first envisioned when I was a greens keeper at PB in the early 70's...and realized Pebble wasn't all it could be.

Talk on....

I like that idea of reversing 9-13 mainly because you change #11 from uphill to downhill to pick up the view of the ocean and Carmel Beach...,ight be a bit short but
It's all about the golf!

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2013, 11:48:38 PM »
William...that's one of the really good beniifits...and much better than #11 uphill...and it would be longer.
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2013, 11:57:54 PM »
William...that's one of the really good beniifits...and much better than #11 uphill...and it would be longer.
nice!
 8)
It's all about the golf!

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #15 on: February 11, 2013, 12:01:20 AM »
the only course I know of where a reversal actually happened besdes TOC is ECC by RTJSr
It's all about the golf!

Pat Burke

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #16 on: February 11, 2013, 12:53:31 AM »
1-8 as is
13-9 backwards
14-18

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #17 on: February 11, 2013, 12:56:25 AM »
I think Pebble would be better woth reversing 9-13 other than that it would be a bad move because you don't see a net gain in great holes and lose the 17/18 finish at the ocean where history has been created
It's all about the golf!

Matthew Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: You have to wonder if
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2013, 12:24:25 PM »
Playing 9 in reverse (up the hill) would be brutal.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back