Most Over Rated Course on the Major Rotation

[BNGL]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @BNGL said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > I know that I am going to get totally flamed for this but, by definition, Augusta is "overhyped". It is beautiful, and makes for a great masters watch, but no course can live up to the hype that is placed on it.

> >

> > Yeah I used to think that but then I starting going to The Masters and played it. It’s worth every infinitesimal amount of praise given to it. I’m perpetually surprised when ANGC comes in second or third on greatest 100 because to me, in my opinion, (emphasizing my opinion only), it is by far and away better than Pine Valley, Oakmont, Cypress Pointe etc.

>

> I cannot say you are wrong.

 

Exactly a lot of times it all comes down to opinion

[Lefthook]

Overrated - what’s the reference? How difficult it is? Condition? Speed on the greens? I’d say any course who can be set up to host a fair competition between the greatest in the world is a legit alternative. So ... the ones that are best fit are those who have a track record of world class champions (adjust as you see fit for the lottery factor introduced by the USGA formula). Old course is quite easy score wise. Pebble Beach too. New and Jubilee are much harder than Old. And there are a bunch of really good courses in US who never make it to the celebrity list. Many of these lack the x-factor, partly due to boring topography, partly history, partly marketing.

The Old Course has karma. And it still discriminates pretty well between the players. Same with PB, IMO, although I’d love to see a championship at Cypress point.

 

So for me - as long as a fair competition can be held - it’s more about the x-factor of the course than how tough it is for an amateur to break par.

 

I haven’t played too many celebrity courses in USA, but Hawaii should be very well fit for a major, IMO. Plantation Course @ Capalua has all the aesthetics it takes, but perhaps not the history.

 

And some of you Americans are way too obsessed with air-borne golf, fast greens, fair design and predictable outcome of every shot. I like Us golf, but nothing beats a quirky old links course with green shapes never seen before and hazards never seen before in the wrong and right places. Actually PB does have some of that ... the deep bunker at #2 comes to mind .... and the course is so beautiful too.

 

Go and play Brora, north of Dornoch. A beauty. Designed by God, in companion with James Braid. Not designed by some architect who is so predictable that you know the bunker out in the fairway is very much in play - just because its there.

 

PS lots of quirky links courses in Scotland, not fit for high level comp. But so fun to play and so memorable.

[Hankshank]

From a TV experience pow, Pinehurst after the remake. A bunch of long par fours in the woods all the same.

[Hankshank]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> I know that I am going to get totally flamed for this but, by definition, Augusta is "overhyped". It is beautiful, and makes for a great masters watch, but no course can live up to the hype that is placed on it.

There are quite a lot of lackluster holes, like 17&18.

On the other hand, there are no major courses without lackluster holes last 9(the ones people really watch).

[QuigleyDU]

> @Hankshank said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > I know that I am going to get totally flamed for this but, by definition, Augusta is "overhyped". It is beautiful, and makes for a great masters watch, but no course can live up to the hype that is placed on it.

> There are quite a lot of lackluster holes, like 17&18.

> On the other hand, there are no major courses without lackluster holes last 9(the ones people really watch).

 

agreed.

[teejaywhy]

> @bladehunter said:

>

> ...Whistling straights ... Any course designed to have the gallery stand and sit inside bunkers that are in play is automatically dead to my eyes. A horrible design feature that’s unfit for a major championship that includes live viewers.

>

Not defending WS, it is not a favorite of mine, HOWEVER:

1) Do you think that course was designed with a gallery in mind?

2) Do you seriously think the choice of allowing spectators to stand in the bunkers is a design feature of the golf course?

 

 

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @teejaywhy said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> >

> > ...Whistling straights ... Any course designed to have the gallery stand and sit inside bunkers that are in play is automatically dead to my eyes. A horrible design feature that’s unfit for a major championship that includes live viewers.

> >

> Not defending WS, it is not a favorite of mine, HOWEVER:

> 1) Do you think that course was designed with a gallery in mind?

> 2) Do you seriously think the choice of allowing spectators to stand in the bunkers is a design feature of the golf course?

>

>

>

>

>

Sarcasm to illustrate why it’s not a major championship course and why if it’s rated as one at all it’s overrated.

 

[teejaywhy]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @teejaywhy said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > >

> > > ...Whistling straights ... Any course designed to have the gallery stand and sit inside bunkers that are in play is automatically dead to my eyes. A horrible design feature that’s unfit for a major championship that includes live viewers.

> > >

> > Not defending WS, it is not a favorite of mine, HOWEVER:

> > 1) Do you think that course was designed with a gallery in mind?

> > 2) Do you seriously think the choice of allowing spectators to stand in the bunkers is a design feature of the golf course?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> Sarcasm to illustrate why it’s not a major championship course and why if it’s rated as one at all it’s overrated.

>

I'm still not following. The illustration you gave has nothing to do with the course.

Kinda just sounds like you are butt-hurt because DJ screwed up.

 

 

[Justmuckit]

> @Lefthook said:

>Go and play Brora, north of Dornoch. A beauty. Designed by God, in companion with James Braid. Not designed by some architect who is so predictable that you know the bunker out in the fairway is very much in play - just because its there.

 

 

 

The 2nd season of the No Laying Up Tourist Sauce series did a great job IMO of highlighting a few courses like Brora that I'd guess a lot of Americans don't even know exist.

[bladehunter]

> @teejaywhy said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @teejaywhy said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > >

> > > > ...Whistling straights ... Any course designed to have the gallery stand and sit inside bunkers that are in play is automatically dead to my eyes. A horrible design feature that’s unfit for a major championship that includes live viewers.

> > > >

> > > Not defending WS, it is not a favorite of mine, HOWEVER:

> > > 1) Do you think that course was designed with a gallery in mind?

> > > 2) Do you seriously think the choice of allowing spectators to stand in the bunkers is a design feature of the golf course?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > Sarcasm to illustrate why it’s not a major championship course and why if it’s rated as one at all it’s overrated.

> >

> I'm still not following. The illustration you gave has nothing to do with the course.

> Kinda just sounds like you are butt-hurt because DJ screwed up.

>

>

 

Has everything to do with the course.

 

 

The question is most overrated major course. Well. How much more overrated can you get than a course that is hosting majors for the foreseeable future and yet has a design flaw that doesn’t allow for spectators ? Similar type issue with chambers bay. You need binoculars to watch it live. As you would at whistling straights if they pushed the ropes back to where they should be. Both should not host majors as they weren’t designed for live viewing.

 

See. No mention of DJ there.

[Shilgy]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @teejaywhy said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @teejaywhy said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > >

> > > > > ...Whistling straights ... Any course designed to have the gallery stand and sit inside bunkers that are in play is automatically dead to my eyes. A horrible design feature that’s unfit for a major championship that includes live viewers.

> > > > >

> > > > Not defending WS, it is not a favorite of mine, HOWEVER:

> > > > 1) Do you think that course was designed with a gallery in mind?

> > > > 2) Do you seriously think the choice of allowing spectators to stand in the bunkers is a design feature of the golf course?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > Sarcasm to illustrate why it’s not a major championship course and why if it’s rated as one at all it’s overrated.

> > >

> > I'm still not following. The illustration you gave has nothing to do with the course.

> > Kinda just sounds like you are butt-hurt because DJ screwed up.

> >

> >

>

> Has everything to do with the course.

>

>

> The question is most overrated major course. Well. How much more overrated can you get than a course that is hosting majors for the foreseeable future and yet has a design flaw that doesn’t allow for spectators ? Similar type issue with chambers bay. You need binoculars to watch it live. As you would at whistling straights if they pushed the ropes back to where they should be. Both should not host majors as they weren’t designed for live viewing.

>

> See. No mention of DJ there.

 

TPC's are probably the only courses made with live viewing in mind. If Augusta was new you'd want the Masters moved because there are a couple holes viewers cannot go near.

[FairwayFred]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @JD3 said:> I think of all the Nicklaus courses (albeit most non majors), Valhalla is only one proven to have merit. Tournaments there are usually pretty interesting, course setup is tough but fair, identifying best player that week. Most of his other courses are lacking....muirfield and Glen abby come to mind. On a smaller scale the 5th hole he redid at Pebble sticks out as one of the worst on the course.

>

> How many of his courses have you played?

>

> I think he has dozens of wonderful courses.

>

> Have you played PB #5? It's a spectacular hole.

>

 

PB #5 is a very very average hole on an incredible piece of land.

[elwhippy]

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....

[LICC]

> @FairwayFred said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @JD3 said:> I think of all the Nicklaus courses (albeit most non majors), Valhalla is only one proven to have merit. Tournaments there are usually pretty interesting, course setup is tough but fair, identifying best player that week. Most of his other courses are lacking....muirfield and Glen abby come to mind. On a smaller scale the 5th hole he redid at Pebble sticks out as one of the worst on the course.

> >

> > How many of his courses have you played?

> >

> > I think he has dozens of wonderful courses.

> >

> > Have you played PB #5? It's a spectacular hole.

> >

>

> PB #5 is a very very average hole on an incredible piece of land.

 

How do you disassociate the land from the hole? I can see if you said it’s an average hole with a great view, but the land a hole runs on is a big piece of evaluating the hole. As for use of the land, the hole makes most use of the limited length available, flows with the natural left to right slope of the terrain, gives a safe option and an aggressive option to play the hole, and the hole blends seamlessly into the aesthetic of the rest of the course.

[JD3]

> @FairwayFred said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @JD3 said:> I think of all the Nicklaus courses (albeit most non majors), Valhalla is only one proven to have merit. Tournaments there are usually pretty interesting, course setup is tough but fair, identifying best player that week. Most of his other courses are lacking....muirfield and Glen abby come to mind. On a smaller scale the 5th hole he redid at Pebble sticks out as one of the worst on the course.

> >

> > How many of his courses have you played?

> >

> > I think he has dozens of wonderful courses.

> >

> > Have you played PB #5? It's a spectacular hole.

> >

>

> PB #5 is a very very average hole on an incredible piece of land.

I agree. Needed some imagination there not a cookie cutter. Having JN do a hole at PB is like joe the painter doing a new section of the sistine chapel

 

[gvogel]

> @JD3 said:

> > @FairwayFred said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @JD3 said:> I think of all the Nicklaus courses (albeit most non majors), Valhalla is only one proven to have merit. Tournaments there are usually pretty interesting, course setup is tough but fair, identifying best player that week. Most of his other courses are lacking....muirfield and Glen abby come to mind. On a smaller scale the 5th hole he redid at Pebble sticks out as one of the worst on the course.

> > >

> > > How many of his courses have you played?

> > >

> > > I think he has dozens of wonderful courses.

> > >

> > > Have you played PB #5? It's a spectacular hole.

> > >

> >

> > PB #5 is a very very average hole on an incredible piece of land.

> I agree. Needed some imagination there not a cookie cutter. Having JN do a hole at PB is like joe the painter doing a new section of the sistine chapel

>

 

Bingo!

[LICC]

> @JD3 said:

> > @FairwayFred said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @JD3 said:> I think of all the Nicklaus courses (albeit most non majors), Valhalla is only one proven to have merit. Tournaments there are usually pretty interesting, course setup is tough but fair, identifying best player that week. Most of his other courses are lacking....muirfield and Glen abby come to mind. On a smaller scale the 5th hole he redid at Pebble sticks out as one of the worst on the course.

> > >

> > > How many of his courses have you played?

> > >

> > > I think he has dozens of wonderful courses.

> > >

> > > Have you played PB #5? It's a spectacular hole.

> > >

> >

> > PB #5 is a very very average hole on an incredible piece of land.

> I agree. Needed some imagination there not a cookie cutter. Having JN do a hole at PB is like joe the painter doing a new section of the sistine chapel

>

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

 

[gvogel]

> @LICC said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > > @FairwayFred said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @JD3 said:> I think of all the Nicklaus courses (albeit most non majors), Valhalla is only one proven to have merit. Tournaments there are usually pretty interesting, course setup is tough but fair, identifying best player that week. Most of his other courses are lacking....muirfield and Glen abby come to mind. On a smaller scale the 5th hole he redid at Pebble sticks out as one of the worst on the course.

> > > >

> > > > How many of his courses have you played?

> > > >

> > > > I think he has dozens of wonderful courses.

> > > >

> > > > Have you played PB #5? It's a spectacular hole.

> > > >

> > >

> > > PB #5 is a very very average hole on an incredible piece of land.

> > I agree. Needed some imagination there not a cookie cutter. Having JN do a hole at PB is like joe the painter doing a new section of the sistine chapel

> >

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

>

 

If Doak or Coore or Hanse built the hole, it would fit better, and look like it had always been there.

[bladehunter]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @teejaywhy said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @teejaywhy said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ...Whistling straights ... Any course designed to have the gallery stand and sit inside bunkers that are in play is automatically dead to my eyes. A horrible design feature that’s unfit for a major championship that includes live viewers.

> > > > > >

> > > > > Not defending WS, it is not a favorite of mine, HOWEVER:

> > > > > 1) Do you think that course was designed with a gallery in mind?

> > > > > 2) Do you seriously think the choice of allowing spectators to stand in the bunkers is a design feature of the golf course?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > Sarcasm to illustrate why it’s not a major championship course and why if it’s rated as one at all it’s overrated.

> > > >

> > > I'm still not following. The illustration you gave has nothing to do with the course.

> > > Kinda just sounds like you are butt-hurt because DJ screwed up.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Has everything to do with the course.

> >

> >

> > The question is most overrated major course. Well. How much more overrated can you get than a course that is hosting majors for the foreseeable future and yet has a design flaw that doesn’t allow for spectators ? Similar type issue with chambers bay. You need binoculars to watch it live. As you would at whistling straights if they pushed the ropes back to where they should be. Both should not host majors as they weren’t designed for live viewing.

> >

> > See. No mention of DJ there.

>

> TPC's are probably the only courses made with live viewing in mind. If Augusta was new you'd want the Masters moved because there are a couple holes viewers cannot go near.

 

Not the same thing at alll. Whistling straights would have patrons 150 yards from the fairway on more than half the holes . Not the same as fans not being around the 12th green or 13 tee. Lol

[LICC]

> @gvogel said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @JD3 said:

> > > > @FairwayFred said:

> > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > @JD3 said:> I think of all the Nicklaus courses (albeit most non majors), Valhalla is only one proven to have merit. Tournaments there are usually pretty interesting, course setup is tough but fair, identifying best player that week. Most of his other courses are lacking....muirfield and Glen abby come to mind. On a smaller scale the 5th hole he redid at Pebble sticks out as one of the worst on the course.

> > > > >

> > > > > How many of his courses have you played?

> > > > >

> > > > > I think he has dozens of wonderful courses.

> > > > >

> > > > > Have you played PB #5? It's a spectacular hole.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > PB #5 is a very very average hole on an incredible piece of land.

> > > I agree. Needed some imagination there not a cookie cutter. Having JN do a hole at PB is like joe the painter doing a new section of the sistine chapel

> > >

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

> >

>

> If Doak or Coore or Hanse built the hole, it would fit better, and look like it had always been there.

 

Back up your statement somehow- what doesn’t fit and how does it look different from the rest of the course?

[WidespreadPanic]

Baltusrol. Bland country club course. People saying the Old Course are out of their minds.

[gvogel]

> @LICC said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > @FairwayFred said:

> > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > @JD3 said:> I think of all the Nicklaus courses (albeit most non majors), Valhalla is only one proven to have merit. Tournaments there are usually pretty interesting, course setup is tough but fair, identifying best player that week. Most of his other courses are lacking....muirfield and Glen abby come to mind. On a smaller scale the 5th hole he redid at Pebble sticks out as one of the worst on the course.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > How many of his courses have you played?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think he has dozens of wonderful courses.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Have you played PB #5? It's a spectacular hole.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > PB #5 is a very very average hole on an incredible piece of land.

> > > > I agree. Needed some imagination there not a cookie cutter. Having JN do a hole at PB is like joe the painter doing a new section of the sistine chapel

> > > >

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

> > >

> >

> > If Doak or Coore or Hanse built the hole, it would fit better, and look like it had always been there.

>

> Back up your statement somehow- what doesn’t fit and how does it look different from the rest of the course?

 

I have the utmost respect for Jack Nicklaus, but his course designs are grand in scale. Pebble was laid out when courses were more intimate; not as much earth was moved, and features were more rustic. Jack doesn't do intimate/rustic very well.

[LICC]

> @gvogel said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > > @FairwayFred said:

> > > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > > @JD3 said:> I think of all the Nicklaus courses (albeit most non majors), Valhalla is only one proven to have merit. Tournaments there are usually pretty interesting, course setup is tough but fair, identifying best player that week. Most of his other courses are lacking....muirfield and Glen abby come to mind. On a smaller scale the 5th hole he redid at Pebble sticks out as one of the worst on the course.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > How many of his courses have you played?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I think he has dozens of wonderful courses.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Have you played PB #5? It's a spectacular hole.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > PB #5 is a very very average hole on an incredible piece of land.

> > > > > I agree. Needed some imagination there not a cookie cutter. Having JN do a hole at PB is like joe the painter doing a new section of the sistine chapel

> > > > >

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

> > > >

> > >

> > > If Doak or Coore or Hanse built the hole, it would fit better, and look like it had always been there.

> >

> > Back up your statement somehow- what doesn’t fit and how does it look different from the rest of the course?

>

> I have the utmost respect for Jack Nicklaus, but his course designs are grand in scale. Pebble was laid out when courses were more intimate; not as much earth was moved, and features were more rustic. Jack doesn't do intimate/rustic very well.

 

Back up your statement somehow- what doesn’t fit and how does it look different from the rest of the course?

 

Nicklaus made other changes to the course at the same time they built the 5th hole. I assume you can identify those changes too as you see this difference that doesn’t “fit”?

[Roadking2003]

> @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.

[FairwayFred]

> @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.

[FairwayFred]

> @LICC said:

> > @FairwayFred said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @JD3 said:> I think of all the Nicklaus courses (albeit most non majors), Valhalla is only one proven to have merit. Tournaments there are usually pretty interesting, course setup is tough but fair, identifying best player that week. Most of his other courses are lacking....muirfield and Glen abby come to mind. On a smaller scale the 5th hole he redid at Pebble sticks out as one of the worst on the course.

> > >

> > > How many of his courses have you played?

> > >

> > > I think he has dozens of wonderful courses.

> > >

> > > Have you played PB #5? It's a spectacular hole.

> > >

> >

> > PB #5 is a very very average hole on an incredible piece of land.

>

> How do you disassociate the land from the hole? I can see if you said it’s an average hole with a great view, but the land a hole runs on is a big piece of evaluating the hole. As for use of the land, the hole makes most use of the limited length available, flows with the natural left to right slope of the terrain, gives a safe option and an aggressive option to play the hole, and the hole blends seamlessly into the aesthetic of the rest of the course.

 

Fair enough. It's a very average hole with a great view.

[LICC]

> @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.

[FairwayFred]

> @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.

[LICC]

> @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.

[FairwayFred]

> @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.