[Tim Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

I like your cadence! Passing out those “right about this and wrong about that” comments.

Totally off topic, but it reminds me of the time I testified in a federal anti trust case on oil price fixing. At one point an attorney said: “I object to the last question”

Another lawyer replied: “I object to the last answer”

Right behind him was one more attorney: “I object to the last two questions and the last two answers”, he said.

At which point I had enough and blurted out “Look, I object to all your objections…..I’m trying to explain how oil pricing really works”.

That was enough to get a laugh out of a bunch of high priced New York attorneys.......and a men's room break.

Thank God!

[D. Kilfara]

The assessements of Dave's I disagree with re: Pebble are 11 and 12. The 11th is an average par 4 with an interesting green but a featureless, undefined drive - call it mediocre. The 12th is a long par 3 to a green with no depth and little interest - given the regard that Nicklaus obviously holds for Pebble, I wonder how many classic "Nicklaus" holes over the years he's designed (you know, the long-iron approach shot requiring a high, soft fade) using this hole as the justification? (The 17th is a bit of a mutt this way, too - it survives on its history, not its architecture. It looks SO much different from the tee than it does from the CBS camera position behind the green - it's just a flat field with a bunker in front and a distant glimpse of the sea.)

I'm more of a fan of 15 than Dave is - the green is much more subtle than he's giving it credit for - but it is another one of seven or eight holes you could just as easily find on the average Northern California private club. And I suppose that's as much my point as anything: every hole at PD has an elegance about it, something to create a feel of uniqueness. Pebble has some pretty decent-yet-ordinary golf holes which are given more credit than they'd otherwise earn simply because they appear on the same golf course as numbers 6-10 and 18.

Cheers,
Darren

[THuckaby2]

DK:  fair enough.  I don't think anyone gives the "weaker" holes at PB too much credit... my point remains that you can eliminate them, give me 3, 4, yes 5, 6-10, 14, 16, yes 17 and 18 and that's enough for a great 18 hole course, as most of those holes are SO great (as you see I disagree with you on some of them).

I also think you're glossing over a lot at PD... but I'm not into denigrating great courses.  PD is a great golf course overall.

TH

[THuckaby2]

15 Pebble is a long version of 10 Riviera... before the Riv / Thomas fans go nuts, by that I mean the greens are very similar.  Obviously the tee shot and strategy are far superior at 10 Riv.  But that green alone makes 11 a good hole in my book, as Dave says...

15 green is a stone bitch also, so I can't ever call that a "bad" hole.  But it isn't the best on the course, that's for sure.  Yes, just bash away on the drive now that the trees by the tee are gone....

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Both courses are home runs in my mind (I would add that Pac and Sand Hills are two fo the finest new courses to come on line in the last 15 years or so) -- but I would give the edge to PB.

In the final analysis -- PB has the tougher greens to hit and to recover from. Get any real wind blowing and if you're not hitting pure shots it will really put maximum pressure on the short game.

Pac Dunes clearly features the better start, but Pebble goes into overdrive starting with the 5th and continuing through the 10th. I think the back nine at Pac doesn't get cranked up until you hit the long par-4 13th and there's a bit of a letdown until the you get to the final three. However, you can say the same thing for PB with the 14th being an exception.

Both courses are very close to 10's in my book because you know you are going to be thoroughly tested. Like I said -- the greens at PB can be very demanding when they get dried out and a bit crusty. Miss too far to either side and your short game better be razor sharp or you will get cut big time.

Again your talking about two of the finest courses in the States and I believe Ran's analysis is quite good and accurate.
I'd play either one -- anytime.

[THuckaby2]

Well said, Matt.  Complete agreement here.

TH

[ian]

I am a noted questioner of Pebble as "the" best course (go gentle Bob for we already established that I must be on drugs). As much as I enjoyed Pacific Dunes, Pebble remains a better course. Tom designed a great course, but Pebble just has more to offer with the ocean holes. When the course get off the ocean I'll go with Tom's work, but you just can't ignore the quality of 4 (my favourite) through 10.

[Mark Ferguson]

My god, man.  I had respect for you, until you ranked RM only sixth.  The old Composite routing at RM is so clear cut as the world's finest golf course that duelling pistols are called for.  All bar the first two holes are among the world's greatest, it's playbale for all, but more challenging the better you try to score, the bunkers make one forget Michaelangelo ever existed, and i'd rather play holes like 5,6, 8, 11, 13 and 14 every day than have sex with Elle MacPherson.  (Pschoanalysts among you please refrain from replying)  and all this from someone who, the first time round, couldn't see what all the fuss was about.

Routing.  Hmmm.  I really like the fact that you could never gauge how the wind was going to affect your shot at Pac since the holes were constantly changing direction.  You are dead on that Pebble uses the line of the ocean or cliff much better than Pacific.  But, with Pac Dunes you also get the gorse and long sea grass to surround each hole.  While Pebble had again houses.

I honestly liked the mixture of holes better at Pac than Pebble.  Now, don't get me wrong I have never had a more fun second shot than the second on #8 at Pebble.  A nice cut three iron into the wind right on the green.  But, at the same time I also hit an awesome punch 5iron from 91 yards at Pac.  

Now, Cypress Point versus Pacific Dunes.  Please.  Cypress Point in a cake walk the bunkering alone wins that contest.  

My own personal rankings of the top 10 would look like this:

Shinnecock
Pine Valley
Cypress Point
Augusta
TOC
Royal Melbourne
Merion
Sand Hills
Royal County Down
Kinston Heath
Pinehurst
Pebble

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave, Tim, et.,al.,

Many people don't get excited about certain holes at Pebble because they are overwhelmed by the natural beauty associated with the ocean holes, and the comparison gives the non-ocean holes the short end of the stick.

I also don't know of many people who play the BACK tees, some of which seem hidden.

Do golfers walk back 40 yards or so toward the first tee to get to the back tee on # 2.  Do they go all the way back to the road/guard rail on # 3 tee.  Both holes are clearly good golf holes from those tees.  # 4 is a neat short hole that a little wind improves nicely.

Many of Erich's critical comments seem directed toward non-architectural features, noise, cars, houses, cart paths, costs, half way houses, etc., etc..

If I'm not mistaken, the cart paths had high curbs installed when two Japanese golfers, unfamiliar with Pebble, were killed when they drove their cart over the cliff on # 8 in foggy conditions, and that the cart path mandate is associated with liability amongst other issues.

Having teed off first and last on several occassions at Pebble, while walking, I found the golf course solid, architecturally, aesthetically and competitively.

It seems that many focus and complain about issues not related to the architecture.  Previously, I've never seen comments critical of specific features on any given hole at Pebble Beach.

[Dan Grossman]

I think it is tough to define which golf course is "better."  In my mind, the two courses are not very much alike, other than they both occupy cliff-side property on the West Coast.  

I played PB from the Blue Plates and that golf course was HARD.  It was demanding off the tee and the greens are TINY with tough recoveries.  It was demanding off the tee in the sense that if you missed the fairway, it was very difficult to be able to control the shot enough to hit the green.  To score well, one has to be hitting the golf ball pure.  IMO, there are not a whole lot of strategy choices at PB, though.  Usually there is one shot which the golfer needs to hit in each situation.  

Pacific Dunes, on the other hand, is much more forgiving.  There is width off the tee and the greens are fairly big.  Unlike PB, a golfer has many options on how to play a shot.  Most of the time at PB, the appropriate option is a well struck aerial approach.  At PD, that is not always the case.  I found myself many times faced with strategy decisions.  For example, on #6, should I drive the green or lay up?  Should I try to run the ball into the green on #4 or play it out over the ocean?  

I view each course as being so different in those regards, I am not sure how to make a choice as to which one is "better."  I don't view the holes away from the ocean at PB as being poor or deficient.  I thought #2 was a great risk/reward par 5.  I thought the lack of definition from the tee on #11 made the tee-ball very challenging.  I think the par 5s at PD are somewhat repetitive (save #18).  

All you golf course raters on this site need to stop worrying about which courses are "better" than one another!!!  

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

You seem to be suggesting that those who play the regular tees at Pebble are missing something.

How is Pebble deficient from the tees most people play from? What are they missing?

I also wonder about your comment about the natural beauty of the ocean holes overwhelming people to the point where they can't be objective about the other stuff.

Does that really make sense?

Think about The Old Head. It blows Pebble Beach away when it comes to the visual senses and yet most people have learned to look past that and be pretty objective about what the course is missing.

Pebble Beach is minor league compared to The Old Head in the "stunning" department. Shouldn't it be easier for people to figure the place out?

[GPazin]

I'd like to make a small request, as someone who hasn't yet had the privilege of playing either:

Please don't simply call holes mediocre or even great without telling us why you feel that way!!!

There's a lot of opinions on this thread, but not a lot of meat on the bones, so to speak. There are certainly some well thought out posts, but there's a lot that are simply labelling holes.

While I appreciate that Rich generally has the final word on all things golf:), I would like a little more explanation than that last post (humorous though it was! ).

If you don't want to get specific with holes, at least give us some reasoning like Dan Grossman's (very well said, btw).

-------

I wonder if the differing opinions on specific holes between even individuals who played each course several times says more about individual tastes than anything else. Can familiarity breed either contempt or love, depending on one's tastes?

And what the heck difference does it make if #2 is a par 4 or a par 5, or if a golfer isn't playing the way back tees? Do we have to recycle those arguments again?

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

George

I feel your pain.

Hopefully this will not be the last word, but let me tell you why I like #4 and think that #7 could be vastly imoproved.

4 is one of the best examples of a short yet undriveable par 4 which is both challenging and esthetically pleasing.  It is an iron to an upsloping fairway which is littered with bunkers, and which narrows (I beleive) the farther you try to go towards the green.  The green itself, as others have said, is small, fast, and full of both internal (contours) and external (bunkers) hazards.  To me the measure of any great short 4 is that it tempts you to think birdie, but can hand double bogey to you quick as a flash.  This is #4 at PB.  Also, it is the first hole that actually plays by the sea, so it has an important role in the tempo and character of your experience.

7 is just a drop shot with a wedge (or SW from the front tees) to a pretty big, pretty flat green surounded by numerous pretty innocuous bunkers.  Sure when force 10 gales are blowing it is probably a bitch (although I think only Ken Venturi has actually played under those conditions ) but on most days it is just a beautiful but strategically unstimulating hole.  However, if........

.......they built a new green to the rear right of the current one which:

--abutted the ocean
--was about 1/3 the size of the current green (think the 11th (?) at Applebrook)
--had just one or two strategically placed pot bunkers (right/center and back/left, perhaps?)
--made the land to the left into a waste area whcih allowed a bail out but forced a recovery shot from an uneven lie to a green beyond which there was nothing but water

Now, THAT would be a great golf hole, IMO, of course......

[George Pazin]

Thanks, Rich - that's exactly what I was looking for.

[THuckaby2]

George/Rich:

That might be what you're looking for, and Rich's comments are sound re #4, but re #7 he is completely off his rocker, with all due respect.

1. The green isn't exactly huge as it is.  I suppose smaller would be a little better, but damn in any sort of wind you're happy that green is as big as it is... it is damn hard to hit.

2. The VERY narrow bunkers to the right side aren't tough enough for you?  It's 50/50 you get a downhill lie in each of them, making for a VERY difficult recovery.  The front left bunker also makes for a very scary shot, with nothing but ocean behind as your visual... And come on, pot bunkers there would look ridiculous, would be as out of place as cement cart paths at Dornoch.  

3. I'd like to know how you're going to move that green farther right - build a platform out on the ocean?  It abuts the ocean as it is!  I guess you could build out onto the rocks that are a little behind and to the right but that would only be a LITTLE difficult... you want to put in Pete Dye bulkheads there and have the green go right up to the cliff?  Woe to the guy who was to mow this.... Sorry, this works as it is in all practicality.  I like the bunkers to the right...

4. Waste area left?  Where?  Tear out the hill?  And as it is any shot from there is looking at green, tiny narrow bunker behind, doom....

Sorry my friend.  Debate if you will the greatness of this hole, but lets deal in reality if we are suggesting "improvements."  

BTW, in terms of greatness of golf holes, 11 at Applebrook is fun, but it doesn't come close to 7 Pebble.  I love Applebrook and it's the best Hanse work I've seen, but that hole has zero penalty for missing the tiny green.

TH

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom, Tom Tom

My ingenious concept involves using the right 1/3 of the existing green, adding to it a bit to make sure that it abutted the Ocean, and then tearing down the left hand side of the green to make the "waste" area.

As for the pot bunkers, well, no bunker at Pebble is really natural in the first place, and wasn't it the revered Hunter who once had faux sand dunes surrounding the 7th?  My concept is hardly less bizzare......

[THuckaby2]

Rich, Rich, Rich:

Hmmm... ok, that explains it a bit better.  I still find it foolish - you'd end up with a microscopic green that's extremely difficult to maintain, trying to replicate Scotland in California which is beyond silly.... but at least this does have some semblance of reality to it.

I've seen the pictures of Hunter's "dunes" there and they try to replicate the natural landscape... so they actually look pretty good!  Nope, pot bunkers there would be horribly out of place, especially since there are no others on the golf course.  I also don't see a left waste area as an improvement on iota on the existing bunker...

Hell, I once espoused making #6 play all the way down to #7 green, creating the monster blind over the hill par 5 to end all, so I'm not averse to dreaming about screwing with Pebble...

I just don't think what you're suggesting on 7 would really improve the hole.  It would look stupid and play not much better, in my opinion of course.  

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

The comment was made that some holes are so-so.
Other comments were made indicating that holes 1-3 are mediocre.

Golfers who don't play the back, back tees on # 2 and # 3 are missing something, the holes are different from back there.
The tee shot on # 2 brings the bunkers into play, and makes the barranca more of a risk/reward factor on the second shot.  On # 3 a player has a risk/reward decision to make from the back, back tee that doesn't get made from the front tee.

It's doubtful that any golfer playing the ocean or inland holes at Pebble is thinking about Old Head.  I think most golfers after playing Pebble and reflecting on holes like 14, 15, and 16, don't have their minds drifting to Old Head, 6,000+ miles away.  Most, if not all, are thinking about the ocean holes at Pebble, a few hundred yards away, and making comparisons between the ocean holes and the inland holes.
Most, have probably never seen Old Head to begin with.

It makes far more sense to compare the inland and ocean holes at Pebble Beach to one another, after one has just played them, than the ridiculous notion that they are going to compare the inland and ocean holes at Pebble Beach to Old Head, especially when the likelyhood is that they've never seen Old Head.  

That's one of the silliest theories that I've ever heard.

Mark Ferguson,

There are doctors who can treat your condition.
Golf over Elle McPherson ?
Have you been talking to Mike Hendren lately ?

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

You don't seem to understand my reference to Old Head.

Of course, most people playing Pebble aren't going to think about Old Head. Quite likely, they haven't been to both locations and don't even realize how small the Pebble Beach cliffs are compared to what you find in Kinsale.

That's not the point.

You suggested that the visual appeal of Pebble's ocean holes was so strong that people couldn't think clearly about the inland holes, i.e., they were still on sensory overload and couldn't appreciate the architectural virtues of holes away from the ocean.

The reference to Old Head is merely to point out that this theory probably doesn't make sense. Old Head is a far more stunning place for a golf course than Pebble. Not even close. But, still, after the shock wears off most people can see that the golf course itself isn't anything special. They are able to differentiate between the extreme sensory overload found at Old Head and what the golf course is missing architecturally.

If people can do this at Old Head, why couldn't the same be true at Pebble Beach?

The truth is that many people love the ocean holes at Pebble, but find a large part of the course nothing special. I've been hearing that for years from well traveled friends who have seen most of the golf architecture world.

I never heard the same people tell me they found many holes at NGLA or Pine Valley disappointing.

Once again you referenced the importance of playing the back tees. What sense does that make? Probably less than five percent of golfers can actually play them. If a course relies on the back tees for maximum enjoyment, doesn't that make a case against rather than for the design? Can you imagine someone saying you have to play PGA West from the back tees? No, I've seen 18 handicappers having a ball from 6200 yards.

[THuckaby2]

The truth is that many people love the ocean holes at Pebble, but find a large part of the course nothing special. I've been hearing that for years from well traveled friends who have seen most of the golf architecture world.

I never heard the same people tell me they found many holes at NGLA or Pine Valley disappointing.

Tim:  I'd have to guess a good portion of even the most ardent Pebble supporters might concede superiority to NGLA and/or PV.  I know I put NGLA above Pebble and as you can see I live and die for the course 60 miles from my front door... and although I'm gonna deny I ever wrote this if Mike Cirba sees it, I have a feeling that if I ever see PV first hand it would ascend to this level also...

The comparison here though was to Pacific Dunes.

And my take on all of this in any case is that while PB may have "weak" golf holes, the others are so great as to make this not matter... An interesting exercise would be to assing point values to each hole, with the maximum being 180 (ie 10 per hole).  I'd have to guess PB gets so many tens it's total value is still way up there... But then, the anti-Pebble faction is likely to give unreasonable 1's or 0's to too many holes, so maybe even this is gonna fail!

TH

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

There is a pot bunker at PB, on the right of the 16th.  It was put there by Sandy Tatum, and his pal Watson went into it on his way to his win in '82.

Rich

PS--I'm pretty sure it was my idea to take the 6th down to the 7th green, but I appreciate your support for at least that idea.

[THuckaby2]

Rich - your memory re "your" ideas was once proven by my find of a certain Tom Paul post re the routing of Cypress.  Please believe me the idea to take 6 down to 7 green was mine and mine alone - I am 100% positive, absolutely, completely certain.  You actually agreed with it and complimented me on it, at the time.   Is senility setting in this early?

And calling the bunker to the right of 16 a pot is REALLY stretching the definition.  Even if I grant this to you - which I don't - that still doesn't make pot bunkers any more out of place at Pebble Beach.

This is all fun to contemplate, in any case.  Your ideas re 7 are growing on me anyway.  Dice the pot bunkers, dice the waste area, maybe shrink the green and move it over to the right as you say, eliminating the right bunkers, and then we might have something.  I'd still call that a maintenance nightmare but that would make for a better golf hole...

TH

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I understand the comparison is between Pebble and Pacific Dunes. What surprises me is that some question whether there are disappointing holes at Pebble. Amongst my most knowledgeable friends, this is taken for granted. My reference to NGLA or PV was merely to illustrate the difference between venues which have almost no weak points and a course (Pebble) which has definite highs - or should I say super highs - but also definite low points.

Of course, you will find some who will try to extol the virtues of the inland holes at Pebble. I expect this. But, I can also sing praises about holes on my local muni, a course that is somewhere around a "2" on the Doak scale.

In any case, we are in the rare air whether talking about Pebble, Pacific Dunes, NGLA or Pine Valley. If you can, go and enjoy and forget about the debate.....my wise Irish friends have taught me.

[THuckaby2]

That all makes perfect sense to me, Tim.

But are YOU indeed forgetting about the debate?  

My only take here is that the "weak" holes aren't nearly as "weak" as some say, and on top of that the great ones are so great that they make the weak look weaker, or just pain don't matter.  Yes, I too can find some good on just about any golf hole, as it is golf and not work, but that's not what's going on at Pebble.

And this is where we disagree, I know... so as much as we each do just enjoy the journey, if we discuss it, this is where a "debate" occurs... nothing wrong with that.

TH

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

I just put "Huckaby" and "steal" into the crack GCA search engine, and guess what I found!

{April 1, 2000:  Great Ideas in Golf: page 12}

"Rich, you're idea of taking the 6th at Pebble all the way down to the current green site is so bitchin' that I'm gonna steal it and claim it as my own!  I'll probably wait a couple of years until you are too senile or bored with this site to notice.  Not only that, but if we ever play NGLA together, no matter how much I think it bites the big one, I'm gonna rave about it interminably.  So there!"

Case closed.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()