Pebble Beach

« **on:** July 09, 2015, 12:04:16 PM »

Hole 1

Aug. 21, 1929 The Niagara Falls Gazette -

Hole 2

Hole 3

« **Reply #1 on:** July 09, 2015, 12:09:47 PM »

Hole 4

Aug. 1931 Golf Illustrated -

Hole 5

Hole 6

April 1931 Golf Illustrated -

Dec. 1929 Golf Illustrated -

Sept. 1930 Golf Illustrated -

« **Reply #2 on:** July 09, 2015, 12:20:44 PM »

Hole 7

March 1922 Golf Illustrated -

Dec. 1931 Golf Illustrated -

Hole 8

Golf Architecture in America -

April 1922 Golfers Magazine -

Hole 9

May 1926 Golf Illustrated -

Sept. 1929 Golf Illustrated -

« **Reply #3 on:** July 09, 2015, 12:24:47 PM »

Hole 10

March 1929 Golf Illustrated -

Hole 11

Hole 12

« **Reply #4 on:** July 09, 2015, 12:26:19 PM »

Hole 13

Hole 14

Hole 15

« **Reply #5 on:** July 09, 2015, 12:31:32 PM »

Hole 16

Hole 17

Sept. 1929 Golf Illustrated -

May 1926 Golf Illustrated -

Date Unknown -

Hole 18

Sept. 1929 Golf Illustrated -

« **Reply #6 on:** July 09, 2015, 12:35:04 PM »

Aerials, Course Maps and Random Shots

March 1929 Golf Illustrated -

Dec. 1920 Golfers Magazine -

Dec. 1921 Golfers Magazine -

May 1920 Golfers Magazine -

Dec. 1931 Golf Illustrated -

Jan. 1929 Golf Illustrated -

« **Reply #7 on:** July 09, 2015, 12:55:13 PM »

Any thoughts on what green this is (Dec. 1930 Golf Illustrated)?

« **Reply #8 on:** July 09, 2015, 01:15:24 PM »

Fantastic stuff Sven. I don't know if many have an appreciation for the time and energy it takes to put these things together. Thank you for all these photo tour threads.

« **Reply #9 on:** July 09, 2015, 06:25:48 PM »

Sven, et. al.,

Are those trees growing within the putting green on # 4 ?

The greens, especially # 7 appear to be considerably larger than today's version.

If that's correct, was their shrinkage by accident or by design ?

« **Reply #10 on:** July 09, 2015, 06:54:15 PM »

Pat:

Re the 4th, pretty sure what you are seeing is golfers/caddies that happen to be lined up with the trunks of the trees in the background, which make it look like the trees are coming out of the green.

Sven

« **Reply #11 on:** July 10, 2015, 01:26:19 AM »

Sven, This is the 13th.

« **Reply #12 on:** July 10, 2015, 03:37:20 PM »

Phenomenal stuff... I, too, would like to learn more about the evolution of the green sizes. Blown away at how large #7 appears to have been..

« **Reply #13 on:** July 11, 2015, 02:45:04 PM »

"Appears" is the operative word. I'm at a loss to see much difference, given the photography and scale provided by the people present.

« **Reply #14 on:** July 12, 2015, 02:04:36 AM »

Anybody who studies these diagrams and photos and still insists that Pebble Beach is overrated just doesn't get it. It's truly a masterpiece of creative and dynamic routing. Thanks, Sven, conjured up great memories from the days of $35 green fees!

« **Reply #15 on:** July 12, 2015, 02:47:52 PM »

Sven, these retro posts are absolutely fantastic! You are the Crown Prince of GCA. Thank you.

« **Reply #16 on:** July 12, 2015, 08:44:23 PM »

Thanks Sven for your efforts...as a greenskeeper at PB in the early 70's, it's a great trip down memory lane...and allows me to see how the features I took care of had changed in the 40+ years since my being there. Good stuff!

« **Reply #17 on:** July 13, 2015, 12:33:21 AM »

Quote from: paul cowley on July 12, 2015, 08:44:23 PM

Thanks Sven for your efforts...as a greenskeeper at PB in the early 70's, it's a great trip down memory lane...and allows me to see how the features I took care of had changed in the 30+ years prior to my being there. Good stuff!

Paul:

If you have the time, I appreciate hearing about the most dramatic changes.

All the best,

Sven

« **Reply #18 on:** July 13, 2015, 11:25:10 PM »

Sure Sven...where do you want to start? I just modified my earlier post to say 40+ years since I worked there...the early 70's. About halfway between its origin and where we are now. PB had changed a lot from the photos and I was there at a pivotal point to address needed change. Golf courses are always changing and its how well you address the change that's most important

We didn't have irrigation in the roughs and they would brown out in the dry seasons.

We didn't have cart paths because they had just come into the game the previous 5 years...we had cart trails where the turf wore out from travel.

I could have told you how big the greens were by the number of walk mower passes it took to cut them...I once could but I can't remember now....but most are smaller by at least 25 to 30% from what I see now.

The bunkers have morphed a fair amount...when I was there one of my jobs was repairing the collapsing bunker faces caused by the incessant sand splash that increased their height to build up until gravity took affect. I feel I was there repairing the original edges in many cases...they have all been totally redone in the past 15 years. I can still remember the raking patterns I would do with the 28 wooden teeth hay rakes with the flexible 5' wooden handles...3'' tines that we would replace when the wore out below 2". Many times I would walk and rake the entire course on Monday...a job I wanted because I loved the effort and was so pleased to create different effects, Zen gardens in the sand...16 fairway bunkers were my favorites, I wonder now if anyone noticed. We got one of the new sandpros when I was there which was used at the end of the week in the bunkers that were large enough so they didn't do too much damage...and then re rake over their tracks so they matched

I could go on a lot about that golden time of my youth...the Course and the characters...who were many! But I really don't like to hear me write (talk about myself)...so ask me a questions if you like and I'll give my best answers. You could probably start with how I got there.

Best to you as well!

« **Reply #19 on:** July 14, 2015, 12:05:07 AM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on July 11, 2015, 02:45:04 PM

Adam,

There's no doubting that # 7 was larger.

And that the bunkering was better

"Appears" is the operative word. I'm at a loss to see much difference, given the photography and scale provided by the people present.

« **Reply #20 on:** July 14, 2015, 12:08:58 AM »

Quote from: Bill_McBride on July 12, 2015, 02:04:36 AM

Bill,

You're 100 % correct.

Pebble Beach is a spectacular golf course, architecturally.

Most who criticize it do so on the basis of cost or time to play.

It is architecturally sound with few if any flaws.

I would like to see the greens and bunkering restored

Anybody who studies these diagrams and photos and still insists that Pebble Beach is overrated just doesn't get it. It's truly a masterpiece of creative and dynamic routing. Thanks, Sven, conjured up great memories from the days of $35 green fees!

« **Reply #21 on:** July 14, 2015, 08:05:21 AM »

Paul -

I'll ask. How did you get to PB? I'd like to think it involved a woman. It's the romantic in me. (with permission from Capt. Renault)

How much larger was the 'neck' on 17th green when you worked there?

I've always thought the 3rd hole was under-rated. It looks like the fw bunkers left of the elbow have changed. Thoughts?

Bob

« **Reply #22 on:** July 14, 2015, 08:50:53 AM »

Patrick, There are so many iterations of the bunkering on #7, which one (era) have you proclaimed as better? I still contend that one cannot accurately distinguish, from these old pictures, the shrinkage of the greens. IMO, they have likely shrunk, the way all greens shrink, (missed mowing) but, relatively only a tiny bit, and not in any significant manner. That's especially true since maintenance melds have also changed. Remove all the stupid rough cut from around the collars and fringes on both 7 and 17, and there's plenty of width.

« **Reply #23 on:** July 14, 2015, 04:08:48 PM »

Paul,
This may seem like a dumb question but how difficult is it to cut the rough lines along the cliff sides? I would have to believe that it was and probably still is a fairly risky to cut along the 8th. I remember wondering that when I played the hole. How much of the cliff side has been lost over time?

What was it like working during the Crosby? I can imagine that's where the "characters" come in.

« **Reply #24 on:** July 14, 2015, 09:05:35 PM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on July 14, 2015, 08:50:53 AM

Patrick, There are so many iterations of the bunkering on #7, which one (era) have you proclaimed as better?

Adam, let's start with the one below.

I still contend that one cannot accurately distinguish, from these old pictures, the shrinkage of the greens.

Look again, and use the size of the golfers as a measure of the green's overall size.

IMO, they have likely shrunk, the way all greens shrink, (missed mowing) but, relatively only a tiny bit, and not in any significant manner.

I disagree

That's especially true since maintenance melds have also changed.

What "maintenance meld" on a strictly aerial, downhill par 3 ?

Remove all the stupid rough cut from around the collars and fringes on both 7 and 17, and there's plenty of width.

Nah.

As to greenside bunkers, their configuration is largely dependent upon the configuration of the green.
When a green changes it's configuration, the bunkers follow suit, no ?

News:

Sven Nilsen

Sven Nilsen

Sven Nilsen

Sven Nilsen

Sven Nilsen

Sven Nilsen

Sven Nilsen

Sven Nilsen

DMoriarty

Patrick_Mucci

Sven Nilsen

Adam Clayman

Daniel Jones

Adam Clayman

Bill_McBride

Jeff Bergeron

paul cowley

Sven Nilsen

paul cowley

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

BCrosby

Adam Clayman

Rob Marshall

Patrick_Mucci

An Error Has Occurred!