Pebble Beach due for a restoriation?

[espn1231]

Pinehurst #2 recently underwent a major restoration and I believe it looks amazing and can't wait to see it host the Open. I found an old picture (1920's) of #7 at Pebble (http://i.imgur.com/M1dSDyO.jpg) and immediately thought that Pebble could IMPROVE if it underwent a restoration a la Pinehurst. Even #17 sorta lost it's redan feature. Thoughts on this? See here/below for comparison pics: http://imgur.com/a/D2U3l

 

[poppyhillsguy]

It would take the average hacker 30 minutes to play the 7th hole with all that sand.

The one thing that comes to mind though is the old version looks like it uses a lot less water. California resembles a desert at the moment. Hillsides are brown and dead when they should be green.

[bogeywoods03]

[quote name='poppyhillsguy' timestamp='1391624217' post='8604225']
It would take the average hacker 30 minutes to play the 7th hole with all that sand.

The one thing that comes to mind though is the old version looks like it uses a lot less water. California resembles a desert at the moment. Hillsides are brown and dead when they should be green.
[/quote]


good thing poppyhills reduced their water use by half...

[dcmidnight]

[quote name='poppyhillsguy' timestamp='1391624217' post='8604225']
It would take the average hacker 30 minutes to play the 7th hole with all that sand.

The one thing that comes to mind though is the old version looks like it uses a lot less water. California resembles a desert at the moment. Hillsides are brown and dead when they should be green.
[/quote]

I wonder why more courses dont go to a paspalum grass. I didnt really know anything about it till I played the Ocean Course in November but it seems like it would really be beneficial especially in drought ridden areas. I guess having to shut the course down to switch over is the real hitch there.

FWIW paspalum is a salt tolerant grass that lets courses near the ocean water with brackish ocean water and cuts down on the cost of irrigating with straight fresh water. Although dont quote me on that, thats how my caddy explained it.

[jptruck]

Paspalum is not the cure-all that people think it is. Pete Dye just re-did his home club in Florida, removing the Paspalum he recommended they install a few years earlier. It has issues with nematodes, cold weather, etc. It is a hardy surface, but I'm not sure the cold-weather environment of Pebble could sustain it.

I agree that Pebble could use some updating to the older standard, though. If nothing else, the US Open from a few years back shows that they should re-build those putting surfaces. They just were not a quality putting surface for an Open. This was mainly due to the Poa heads bumping balls all over the place and the USGA starving the place of water. The putt Phil missed on 14 (I think) was a prime example. Looked like plinko.

It's hard to take a course offline when it gets $2,000 a foursome every 10 minutes, though.

[espn1231]

[quote name='jptruck' timestamp='1391628934' post='8604793']
It's hard to take a course offline when it gets $2,000 a foursome every 10 minutes, though.
[/quote]

Haha, yes that's very hard to justify to the investors or whoever owns Pebble these days but I believe the course is slipping and only hanging onto it's top 10 ranking due to location/history.

[mark m]

[quote name='jptruck' timestamp='1391628934' post='8604793']
Paspalum is not the cure-all that people think it is. Pete Dye just re-did his home club in Florida, removing the Paspalum he recommended they install a few years earlier. It has issues with nematodes, cold weather, etc. It is a hardy surface, but I'm not sure the cold-weather environment of Pebble could sustain it.

I agree that Pebble could use some updating to the older standard, though. If nothing else, the US Open from a few years back shows that they should re-build those putting surfaces. They just were not a quality putting surface for an Open. This was mainly due to the Poa heads bumping balls all over the place and the USGA starving the place of water. The putt Phil missed on 14 (I think) was a prime example. Looked like plinko.

It's hard to take a course offline when it gets $2,000 a foursome every 10 minutes, though.
[/quote]

Good post.

It would take a strong will to make some changes. The money lost, the criticism for altering "hallowed ground", etc. Another issue is the size of some of the greens and their 'hole-able' area when they get firm and fast for a championship. Some of us see this at the state level in our championships when they choose an older course with small greens that were designed for green speeds of 7' or 8' on the stimp. These greens often have some big tilt, and then they roll and cut them so they are running 11 or more. It can get gimmicky pretty quickly.

I would reconstruct #14 (par 5) to provide more hole locations. Currently the holeable area is very small. I would make it look something like #2 at Augusta (not deeper, but wider) and probably make #17 green slightly larger on the left side so it can better hold the required long shot. Maybe others, but those two come to mind just going off memory. And yes - use a poa resistent blend as well if you decide to do the full monte.

I feel the same about the long par 3 at Augusta; #4. It plays up to 240 and last year it played as the toughest hole at 3.3896. For that length of hole, the green should be deeper on the right side and there should be some room to the right of the green for recovery shots. Leave the bunker in the middle, just reduce the right side to make it play like the original idea of MacKenzie, a longer version of an Eden hole (#11 Old Course, St. Andrews).

That's my 2 cents. (I highly doubt any of my ideas will be considered! LOL)

[subrosa]

I think everyone should look at what they did with Pasatiempo, it really became the "old course" again and as an added bonus needs less water.

PB has some truely epic holes, including #7, but I think they could redesign a few of the back 9 holes. I know it is unholy to say it but I find a few on the back to be a bit plain. I would love to see some of that native sand/scrub come onto the course. If you look at the back 9 of Pacific Grove, I have a feeling that is more the "style" the designer was going for and seems to have been tinkered with a bit less (if you ignore 17/18) albeit you get to see the light house as you come home.

Now the big issue is that the "native" grass does make it harder to play IF you can't retrive balls. Spanish Bay is hard because you have such tight windows of "safe" landing spaces where as with Pebble you can bail out quite a bit.

[ryu123]

in terms of green conditions, I played PB in May 2012 and April 2013, and the greens were fast and flawless. (also in April 2005 they were very good.)

(I've only played Pasatiempo post-Tom Doak renovation and so can't comment. Never played Pinehurst #2.)

I like PB #7 the way it is.

I agree that PB #14 green is very tiny for such a long, uphill par 5.

Not a fan of PB #17 green. It's really tough, even with benign conditions.

The owners have been tweaking the course steadily over the past 5 years, with new tee boxes and redesigned bunkers.

I guess they figure have a pretty good course, so if it's not broken...?

[mctrees02]

[quote name='poppyhillsguy' timestamp='1391624217' post='8604

225']
It would take the average hacker 30 minutes to play the 7th hole with all that sand.

The one thing that comes to mind though is the old version looks like it uses a lot less water. California resembles a desert at the moment. Hillsides are brown and dead when they should be green.
[/quote]

Hey it usually takes 30 minutes from 6 green to 7 green anyways so what's the difference?!?
----------

I disagree about the greens being "fast" at Pebble Beach for the past few years. They roll very well for poa but they certainly don't have them running at even a 10 the 3 times I've played (April 2013, January 2013, August 2012). The biggest thing about the greens that always sticks out to me when playing there is how I tend to leave my first few putts shorts until I adjust to them as they are always slower than the practice green.

Many people complain about 11-16 because anything that you play after playing arguably the greatest stretch of ocean golf will be a letdown. However, the second shot at 11 is one of the toughest on the course and can wreck a scorecard if not respected properly. The same can be said for the tee shot at 12 and the second at 13. Placement is at a premium on those 3 approaches. If they took a bulldozer to the 14th tee, 14th green, along with all of 15 and 16...I don't think anybody would miss them. The concept of 14 green is wonderful but the tiny playable size of the green make it a nightmare for a tournament.

I do think a renovation back to a more native look would benefit the course. Unfortunately, many people paying $500/round expect the immaculate, lush green conditions that they've grown accustomed to seeing on TV and to deviate from that could potentially hamper business. If I remember right, the USGA tried to use the 2010 US Open to introduce the concept of brown grass and firm course conditions to the golfing public. It's definitely caught on with the avid golfers yet 6 months later and Pebble was back to lush green turf everywhere possible.

I wonder if some of the changes to the sandy areas are made as much because of erosion as anything else. I'm nowhere near an expert in that field....just a parting thought.

[Golf-Junkie]

[quote name='dcmidnight' timestamp='1391625453' post='8604379']
[quote name='poppyhillsguy' timestamp='1391624217' post='8604225']
It would take the average hacker 30 minutes to play the 7th hole with all that sand.

The one thing that comes to mind though is the old version looks like it uses a lot less water. California resembles a desert at the moment. Hillsides are brown and dead when they should be green.
[/quote]

I wonder why more courses dont go to a paspalum grass. I didnt really know anything about it till I played the Ocean Course in November but it seems like it would really be beneficial especially in drought ridden areas. I guess having to shut the course down to switch over is the real hitch there.

FWIW paspalum is a salt tolerant grass that lets courses near the ocean water with brackish ocean water and cuts down on the cost of irrigating with straight fresh water. Although dont quote me on that, thats how my caddy explained it.
[/quote]

Nice choice. As sturdy and resilient as Bermuda, but with less grain - almost bentlike.

If any of you west coast dudes have been to Cabo, Diamante is paspalum. Killer track. The club has a gigantic pipe dangling into the Pacific ocean sucking aqua onto the course. If you play it, make sure you take a caddy...

[url="http://www.diamantecabosanlucas.com/cabo-golf-courses/dunes/"]http://www.diamantecabosanlucas.com/cabo-golf-courses/dunes/[/url]

[cardoustie]

Original number 7 is way WAY better, love that image ... Thx

Looks much more natural to the area

Someone (Clint) call Crenshawe and Coore STAT

Op, pls fix your title

[Truman]

It seems like only a few years since the last update

[cota0429]

I just played Pebble and the condition was wonderful. The greens were fast a smooth! Why fix?

[dlygrisse]

I really like the look of the first 4 or 5 holes at Spyglass, it is more of the rugged sandy look like the older pics of Pebble. Seems to me the seaside holes should have more of this looks since it is what the natural terrain should look like.

[asommers14]

Do you know if they sell prints of those pictures?