Most Over Rated Course on the Major Rotation

[LICC]

> @FairwayFred said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @FairwayFred said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @FairwayFred said:

> > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:> I think this is telling. Anti-Nicklaus bias clouding opinions. If Doak or Coore built the same hole you would say it is great.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is true. PB #5 is a perfect fit. It fits the land and requires some thinking. But there are a lot of "experts" who prefer the Crenshaw name over the Nicklaus name.

> > > > >

> > > > > Nope. The green and the bunkering does not fit the rest of the course. Look at an overhead view of the course and it easily stands out as different. It's a very average hole the likes of which can be found on many average courses if you take away the ocean view and only someone who has a total and obvious bias towards Nicklaus courses would not see that. I like plenty of Jack's work and would love to tell you this was a great hole but it simply is not. Too bad Jack mailed it in with such a cookie cutter hole instead of making something that truly befit the setting. Was a great opportunity for him and the course.

> > > > >

> > > > > Also come on, no "experts" like the Crenshaw name better than the Nicklaus name. That's ridiculous. Jack is maybe the most beloved and best player in the history of the game.

> > > >

> > > > How does the bunkering on the hole not fit the rest of the course? The bunkers themselves or where they are placed? The bunkers themselves are the same style as the bunkers all over the rest of the course. Having a bunker in front? The other par-3s at Pebble all have bunkers in front. And the green is the same size as the green was on the old 5th hole it replaced.

> > >

> > > The shaping of the bunkers does not fit the rest of the course. They are very plain, almost kidney shaped or oval shaped nd do not fit the style of the rest of the more free-form bunkers especially the ones near the greens. Most of the bunkering is on a very grand scale the bunkers on 5 are all small. The shaping on the left side of the green and how the short grass runs all the way along the left and over the green is unlike any other hole on the course where the only short grass is short of the green (other than the recent work on 15 which was not there when Jack designed 5). Also the way the green is pinched by the bunkers in the middle is unlike any other hole there. Let's be honest it looks like a hole built in the Nicklaus style that would fit in on most of his courses rather than a hole that fits the Pebble Beach style.

> >

> > The bunkers don’t pinch the green. From the tee the back bunker is left of the front bunker. And the back of the green doesn’t pinch. The front of 12 “pinches” the same way where the front bunker lip is raised. The Nicklaus team says they studied the other bunkers on the course to model the bunker shaping on 5. They also redid a number of other bunkers on the course at the same time they built the 5th, so if they put in bunkers that didn’t fit the shaping, you would think you could identify those too.

>

> The prominent bunkers on 5 pinch the middle of the green in a way unlike the other holes at PB. I'm not arguing what they studied before they did the work. Architects pay lip service to this and that all the time when talking about work they did. Take a look at an overhead view of the course. Use Google earth. The shaping of the bunkering on 5 just doesnt fit the rest of the course. The rest of the course looks different the bunkers are mostly larger and free form not small and peanut, kidney or oval shaped like the bunkers on 5. Especially near the greens. Look how straight or rounded the edges are on all the bunkers on 5 compared to the rest of the course where the edges are much more random. Is it just a coincidence that this is pretty much the exact bunker style that Jack was using at all his courses at the time? I don't think it is.

 

As far as shaping and rounded edges, a number of green side bunkers are similar. Ones on 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, and 17 (granted that some are part of clusters). Yes the 5th has smaller bunkers but it’s a cliff side midrange par 3. Agree to disagree.

[JD3]

"fitting in" is the wrong criteria imo. Does the super short 7th fit in? Or the diagonally positioned hourglass shaped 17th?

 

What makes coores and Crenshaw so good is they take the land and build the best hole they can...they're not trying to "fit it in". How about using some imagination there? A punch bowl shaped , concave green could have been interesting. Or convex one with a pot bunker guarding the front, while allowing for entrance from either side? No, JN tries to make it "fit in" and in the process designs a kluge of a hole where it slopes front to back, and players can only aim for 1/3rd of the green no matter where the pin is.

[LICC]

> @JD3 said:

> "fitting in" is the wrong criteria imo. Does the super short 7th fit in? Or the diagonally positioned hourglass shaped 17th?

>

> What makes coores and Crenshaw so good is they take the land and build the best hole they can...they're not trying to "fit it in". How about using some imagination there? A punch bowl shaped , concave green could have been interesting. Or convex one with a pot bunker guarding the front, while allowing for entrance from either side? No, JN tries to make it "fit in" and in the process designs a kluge of a hole where it slopes front to back, and players can only aim for 1/3rd of the green no matter where the pin is.

 

A punch bowl would fit even less. You are not limited to aiming for only 1/3 of the green. Going for dead center over the front bunker is very reasonable. The green slopes with the natural lay of the land. I’ll also note that the old 5th was not heavily bunkered. It had a fairly wide bunker a bit in front of the green with a high lip which, along with the uphill tee shot, made the green somewhat blind. If anything the old 5th did not fit in with the rest of the course and the new 5th is much more of a fit.

[irvnasty]

I don't think the 5th at Pebble is a great hole, but not every hole needs to be great. It fits in well enough IMO. But I agree with sentiments that it's not more than a decent hole with a spectacular view. I suppose the front-to-back green slope and potential to and the ball off the green and run it on add a bit of variety to the course.

[Roadking2003]

> @FairwayFred said:> The prominent bunkers on 5 pinch the middle of the green in a way unlike the other holes at PB.

 

You are either blind or just exposing your dislike of Nicklaus designs. Bunkers on #5 and #6 are almost identical and both greens are "pinched in". Hole number five fits the others perfectly.

 

Hole 5:

Hole 6:

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @JD3 said:

> "fitting in" is the wrong criteria imo. Does the super short 7th fit in? Or the diagonally positioned hourglass shaped 17th?

>

> What makes coores and Crenshaw so good is they take the land and build the best hole they can...they're not trying to "fit it in".

 

Admit it. What makes Coore and Crenshaw so good is their name.

[FairwayFred]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @FairwayFred said:> The prominent bunkers on 5 pinch the middle of the green in a way unlike the other holes at PB.

>

> You are either blind or just exposing your dislike of Nicklaus designs. Bunkers on #5 and #6 are almost identical and both greens are "pinched in". Hole number five fits the others perfectly.

>

> Hole 5:

>

> Hole 6:

>

>

>

 

So I post that it's unlike other holes partly because of how the front and back bunker pinch the green in the middle and you post a pic of another green with no bunkering in the front at all and absolutely no resemblance to what I describe. Thx for helping prove my point I appreciate the assist.

[LICC]

> @FairwayFred said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @FairwayFred said:> The prominent bunkers on 5 pinch the middle of the green in a way unlike the other holes at PB.

> >

> > You are either blind or just exposing your dislike of Nicklaus designs. Bunkers on #5 and #6 are almost identical and both greens are "pinched in". Hole number five fits the others perfectly.

> >

> > Hole 5:

> >

> > Hole 6:

> >

> >

> >

>

> So I post that it's unlike other holes partly because of how the bunkers pinch the green in the middle with the front and back bunker and you post a pic of another green with no bunkering in the front at all and absolutely no resemblance to what I describe. Thx for helping prove my point I appreciate the assist.

 

But it is not pinched in the middle. The front bunker is on the left side of the green. The back bunker is middle, from the tee doesn’t line up directly behind the front bunker, and doesn’t pinch the green. The other par-3s on the course all have bunkers in front.

I like that Nicklaus took a subtle approach while putting in different ways to play the hole. If he put in a contrived green type or aggressive features people would be complaining that he didn’t respect the land and was imposing his style.

[LICC]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > "fitting in" is the wrong criteria imo. Does the super short 7th fit in? Or the diagonally positioned hourglass shaped 17th?

> >

> > What makes coores and Crenshaw so good is they take the land and build the best hole they can...they're not trying to "fit it in".

>

> Admit it. What makes Coore and Crenshaw so good is their name.

 

 

I’ve played two Coore Crenshaw courses and thought both were excellent. I’ve also played numerous Nicklaus courses that have ranged from good to excellent to spectacular.

[FairwayFred]

> @LICC said:

> > @FairwayFred said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @FairwayFred said:> The prominent bunkers on 5 pinch the middle of the green in a way unlike the other holes at PB.

> > >

> > > You are either blind or just exposing your dislike of Nicklaus designs. Bunkers on #5 and #6 are almost identical and both greens are "pinched in". Hole number five fits the others perfectly.

> > >

> > > Hole 5:

> > >

> > > Hole 6:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > So I post that it's unlike other holes partly because of how the bunkers pinch the green in the middle with the front and back bunker and you post a pic of another green with no bunkering in the front at all and absolutely no resemblance to what I describe. Thx for helping prove my point I appreciate the assist.

>

> But it is not pinched in the middle. The front bunker is on the left side of the green. The back bunker is middle, from the tee doesn’t line up directly behind the front bunker, and doesn’t pinch the green. The other par-3s on the course all have bunkers in front.

> I like that Nicklaus took a subtle approach while putting in different ways to play the hole. If he put in a contrived green type or aggressive features people would be complaining that he didn’t respect the land and was imposing his style.

 

The middle between the bunkers is then smallest and tightest part of the green and while the bunkers r offset a little vs each other it definitely pinches the green in the middle. My argument is that the hole is exactly Nicklaus style and fits much more with what he was doing at the time than the rest of the course.

[FairwayFred]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > "fitting in" is the wrong criteria imo. Does the super short 7th fit in? Or the diagonally positioned hourglass shaped 17th?

> >

> > What makes coores and Crenshaw so good is they take the land and build the best hole they can...they're not trying to "fit it in".

>

> Admit it. What makes Coore and Crenshaw so good is their name.

 

This makes absolutely ZERO sense.

[FairwayFred]

> @LICC said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @JD3 said:

> > > "fitting in" is the wrong criteria imo. Does the super short 7th fit in? Or the diagonally positioned hourglass shaped 17th?

> > >

> > > What makes coores and Crenshaw so good is they take the land and build the best hole they can...they're not trying to "fit it in".

> >

> > Admit it. What makes Coore and Crenshaw so good is their name.

>

>

> I’ve played two Coore Crenshaw courses and thought both were excellent. I’ve also played numerous Nicklaus courses that have ranged from good to excellent to spectacular.

 

I don't understand what Coore Crenshaw has to do with Pebble Beach or why they are relevant to this discussion.

[Roadking2003]

> @FairwayFred said:> I don't understand what Coore Crenshaw has to do with Pebble Beach or why they are relevant to this discussion.

 

I agree but see post #332.

[Roadking2003]

> @LICC said:> I’ve played two Coore Crenshaw courses and thought both were excellent. I’ve also played numerous Nicklaus courses that have ranged from good to excellent to spectacular.

 

I' ve played six Coore Crenshaw courses. Only one was below standard. The others were very nice. But overall, I think their courses are rated higher than they should be.

 

[FairwayFred]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @LICC said:> I’ve played two Coore Crenshaw courses and thought both were excellent. I’ve also played numerous Nicklaus courses that have ranged from good to excellent to spectacular.

>

> I' ve played six Coore Crenshaw courses. Only one was below standard. The others were very nice. But overall, I think their courses are rated higher than they should be.

>

 

Which 6 have you played?

[Roadking2003]

> @FairwayFred said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @LICC said:> I’ve played two Coore Crenshaw courses and thought both were excellent. I’ve also played numerous Nicklaus courses that have ranged from good to excellent to spectacular.

> >

> > I' ve played six Coore Crenshaw courses. Only one was below standard. The others were very nice. But overall, I think their courses are rated higher than they should be.

> >

>

> Which 6 have you played?

 

Austin Golf Club

Barton Creek Cliffside

Colorado Golf Club

Sand Valley

Talking Stick

We-Ko-Pa Saguaro

 

[FairwayFred]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @FairwayFred said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @LICC said:> I’ve played two Coore Crenshaw courses and thought both were excellent. I’ve also played numerous Nicklaus courses that have ranged from good to excellent to spectacular.

> > >

> > > I' ve played six Coore Crenshaw courses. Only one was below standard. The others were very nice. But overall, I think their courses are rated higher than they should be.

> > >

> >

> > Which 6 have you played?

>

> Austin Golf Club

> Barton Creek Cliffside

> Colorado Golf Club

> Sand Valley

> Talking Stick

> We-Ko-Pa Saguaro

>

 

Which one didn't you like out of curiosity?

[Roadking2003]

> @FairwayFred said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @FairwayFred said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:> I’ve played two Coore Crenshaw courses and thought both were excellent. I’ve also played numerous Nicklaus courses that have ranged from good to excellent to spectacular.

> > > >

> > > > I' ve played six Coore Crenshaw courses. Only one was below standard. The others were very nice. But overall, I think their courses are rated higher than they should be.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Which 6 have you played?

> >

> > Austin Golf Club

> > Barton Creek Cliffside

> > Colorado Golf Club

> > Sand Valley

> > Talking Stick

> > We-Ko-Pa Saguaro

> >

>

> Which one didn't you like out of curiosity?

 

Barton Creek Cliffside. It's the weakest of our four courses.

 

Also, I enjoyed Sand Valley but I think it is overrated. Also Austin Golf Club.

[FairwayFred]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @FairwayFred said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @FairwayFred said:

> > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:> I’ve played two Coore Crenshaw courses and thought both were excellent. I’ve also played numerous Nicklaus courses that have ranged from good to excellent to spectacular.

> > > > >

> > > > > I' ve played six Coore Crenshaw courses. Only one was below standard. The others were very nice. But overall, I think their courses are rated higher than they should be.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Which 6 have you played?

> > >

> > > Austin Golf Club

> > > Barton Creek Cliffside

> > > Colorado Golf Club

> > > Sand Valley

> > > Talking Stick

> > > We-Ko-Pa Saguaro

> > >

> >

> > Which one didn't you like out of curiosity?

>

> Barton Creek Cliffside. It's the weakest of our four courses.

>

> Also, I enjoyed Sand Valley but I think it is overrated. Also Austin Golf Club.

 

Interesting. I've never heard anything very good about the CC course at Barton. Seems like the red headed step child of the resort.

Also interestingly enough Ive not played Austin GC, Barton or Sand Valley but I have played the other 3 and just about every other Coore Crenshaw in the US other than Kapalua.

You need to go play Sand Hills or Friars Head sometime.

[JD3]

> @FairwayFred said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @JD3 said:

> > > "fitting in" is the wrong criteria imo. Does the super short 7th fit in? Or the diagonally positioned hourglass shaped 17th?

> > >

> > > What makes coores and Crenshaw so good is they take the land and build the best hole they can...they're not trying to "fit it in".

> >

> > Admit it. What makes Coore and Crenshaw so good is their name.

>

> This makes absolutely ZERO sense.

 

yeah really, he/she keeps pushing that narrative, but before course design I never heard of Coore, and Nicklaus is a far more prestigious golfer than Crenshaw.

[LICC]

> @FairwayFred said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @FairwayFred said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @FairwayFred said:

> > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:> I’ve played two Coore Crenshaw courses and thought both were excellent. I’ve also played numerous Nicklaus courses that have ranged from good to excellent to spectacular.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I' ve played six Coore Crenshaw courses. Only one was below standard. The others were very nice. But overall, I think their courses are rated higher than they should be.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Which 6 have you played?

> > > >

> > > > Austin Golf Club

> > > > Barton Creek Cliffside

> > > > Colorado Golf Club

> > > > Sand Valley

> > > > Talking Stick

> > > > We-Ko-Pa Saguaro

> > > >

> > >

> > > Which one didn't you like out of curiosity?

> >

> > Barton Creek Cliffside. It's the weakest of our four courses.

> >

> > Also, I enjoyed Sand Valley but I think it is overrated. Also Austin Golf Club.

>

> Interesting. I've never heard anything very good about the CC course at Barton. Seems like the red headed step child of the resort.

> Also interestingly enough Ive not played Austin GC, Barton or Sand Valley but I have played the other 3 and just about every other Coore Crenshaw in the US other than Kapalua.

> You need to go play Sand Hills or Friars Head sometime.

 

I’ve played Cuscowilla and Streamsong Red. Both excellent, especially Streamsong. Great strategic options and variety. Great use of the land. And nothing overdone.

[Roadking2003]

> @FairwayFred said:> You need to go play Sand Hills or Friars Head sometime.

 

I would love to, but they are not likely due to location. My next few destinations are;

 

Cabot Links

Lake Tahoe

Punta Cana

Banff

Bandon Dunes

 

 

[DFS PFD]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @FairwayFred said:> You need to go play Sand Hills or Friars Head sometime.

>

> I would love to, but they are not likely due to location. My next few destinations are;

>

> Cabot Links

> Lake Tahoe

> Punta Cana

> Banff

> Bandon Dunes

>

>

 

Make sure to hit Montreux, or Old Greenwood while in Tahoe.

[Roadking2003]

> @"DFS PFD" said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @FairwayFred said:> You need to go play Sand Hills or Friars Head sometime.

> >

> > I would love to, but they are not likely due to location. My next few destinations are;

> >

> > Cabot Links

> > Lake Tahoe

> > Punta Cana

> > Banff

> > Bandon Dunes

> >

> >

>

> Make sure to hit Montreux, or Old Greenwood while in Tahoe.

 

Old Greenwood is on the list but I'm not familiar with Montreux. We are staying in Truckee.

[cdnglf]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @FairwayFred said:> You need to go play Sand Hills or Friars Head sometime.

>

> I would love to, but they are not likely due to location. My next few destinations are;

>

> Cabot Links

> Lake Tahoe

> Punta Cana

> Banff

> Bandon Dunes

 

You probably already know this, but...

if you’re going all the way to Cape Breton, you might want to play Highlands Links too. Like Banff, it was designed by Stanley Thompson. At least top 10 on every list of Canadian courses that I’ve ever seen.

 

[Hankshank]

> @elwhippy said:

> In the UK St Andrew's Old Course. Great history but an abysmal viewing venue and too for modern players. If it is calm in 2021 I reckon someone could break 60. If the R&A HQ was somewhere else the OC would be used a lot less. In the US got to be Whistling....made by bulldozers and someone with a distorted idea of what fun is about. Oh and Day tore it to bits....

 

Old course, yes and no. If you’ve been to the place, It’s magic. To go there playing with the views of the town and the sea, the caddie who tell you ”aye, ee was borrn en sant Androos... ee lost me verrrgeenity in sant Androos”. Playing the tee shot at 17, the whole area made up by 1, 18 R&A, Rusacks, that brown building, the ”larrgesst peeniss in Scotland” and that golf museum... watching tournaments from there, that brings back those memories. Also from earlier tournaments, Rocca going crazy after the putt from valley of sin. And so on.

 

At the same time, the largest number of lackluster holes on a major course save Pinehurst. That whole stretch from 13-16 and more. Even if you know the name of all the bunkers.

 

[Roadking2003]

> @cdnglf said:> You probably already know this, but...

> if you’re going all the way to Cape Breton, you might want to play Highlands Links too. Like Banff, it was designed by Stanley Thompson. At least top 10 on every list of Canadian courses that I’ve ever seen.

>

Yes, but I couldn't work it in.

 

[teejaywhy]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @"DFS PFD" said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @FairwayFred said:> You need to go play Sand Hills or Friars Head sometime.

> > >

> > > I would love to, but they are not likely due to location. My next few destinations are;

> > >

> > > Cabot Links

> > > Lake Tahoe

> > > Punta Cana

> > > Banff

> > > Bandon Dunes

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Make sure to hit Montreux, or Old Greenwood while in Tahoe.

>

> Old Greenwood is on the list but I'm not familiar with Montreux. We are staying in Truckee.

 

If you can access Clear Creek Tahoe, well worth it. Head and shoulders above the others I've played in the area.

 

[LICC]

> @FairwayFred said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @FairwayFred said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @FairwayFred said:> The prominent bunkers on 5 pinch the middle of the green in a way unlike the other holes at PB.

> > > >

> > > > You are either blind or just exposing your dislike of Nicklaus designs. Bunkers on #5 and #6 are almost identical and both greens are "pinched in". Hole number five fits the others perfectly.

> > > >

> > > > Hole 5:

> > > >

> > > > Hole 6:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > So I post that it's unlike other holes partly because of how the bunkers pinch the green in the middle with the front and back bunker and you post a pic of another green with no bunkering in the front at all and absolutely no resemblance to what I describe. Thx for helping prove my point I appreciate the assist.

> >

> > But it is not pinched in the middle. The front bunker is on the left side of the green. The back bunker is middle, from the tee doesn’t line up directly behind the front bunker, and doesn’t pinch the green. The other par-3s on the course all have bunkers in front.

> > I like that Nicklaus took a subtle approach while putting in different ways to play the hole. If he put in a contrived green type or aggressive features people would be complaining that he didn’t respect the land and was imposing his style.

>

> The middle between the bunkers is then smallest and tightest part of the green and while the bunkers r offset a little vs each other it definitely pinches the green in the middle. My argument is that the hole is exactly Nicklaus style and fits much more with what he was doing at the time than the rest of the course.

 

This video is one of the few that shows the old 5th hole at Pebble. The old one didn't seem to have more than minimal bunkering and no more than the new Nicklaus 5th. And the video of the new hole shows that unless you want bunkering around the entire front of the green, there isn't that much more that could have been done. The trees behind the green were not allowed to be moved and likely made putting a bunker back there not feasible. Nicklaus discusses his rationale in the video as to why it is a better hole to have the left side approach open.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/videos/2018/08/19/us-amateur-jack-nicklaus-pebble-beach-fifth-hole.html

[Dsevans8]

> @teejaywhy said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @"DFS PFD" said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @FairwayFred said:> You need to go play Sand Hills or Friars Head sometime.

> > > >

> > > > I would love to, but they are not likely due to location. My next few destinations are;

> > > >

> > > > Cabot Links

> > > > Lake Tahoe

> > > > Punta Cana

> > > > Banff

> > > > Bandon Dunes

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Make sure to hit Montreux, or Old Greenwood while in Tahoe.

> >

> > Old Greenwood is on the list but I'm not familiar with Montreux. We are staying in Truckee.

>

> If you can access Clear Creek Tahoe, well worth it. Head and shoulders above the others I've played in the area.

>

 

Would you put Clear Creek above Martis Camp and Lahontan? I have some connections up that way and was thinking about going up there for a few rounds before the season ended... going to cost me a pretty penny so probably won't get to play them all.