With the PGA Tour making its annual trip to California's Monterey Peninsula and the famed Pebble Beach Golf Links, the topic of discussion about its current presentation versus past iterations also returns. Like all special works and places, there is a healthy and impassioned debate about what the course ought to be.
Many common fans think it ought to be well left alone and that it is great as it stands now. Their intentions, I believe, come from a good side of trying to preserve what they see as a classic, but what they often don't know is just how much the course has changed and evolved over time. That can understandably be difficult to see, especially when the bigger, more noticeable changes happened many years ago. For example, it is easy to see what Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw recently did to restore Pinehurst No. 2, but it is more difficult to see the slow evolution from Donald Ross's time to the version of the course that preceded Coore and Crenshaw's work. It is simply difficult to witness the differences wrought by slow change. This is only natural, but it is also what has been happening to Pebble Beach.
The 1929 version of the course, which was renovated for the 1929 U.S. Amateur Championship, is regarded by many as the high water mark of the layout, both in strategy and beauty. This overhaul, which included the rebuilding of 16 greens and the introduction of "imitation sand dunes" around many of the greens, was performed by H. Chandler Egan with help from Roger Lapham and Robert Hunter. Egan made a number of revisions but largely retained the routing as well as two greens (the 8th and 13th) that Alister MacKenzie had recently remodeled in prior years. He adjusted hole lengths, repositioned bunkers, widened fairways, rebuilt and shifted greens, and introduced "imitation sand dunes" as a form of hazard around a number of greens, especially ones at the seaside. Jack Neville and Douglas Grant’s brilliant figure 8 routing, the one you all know and love today, was retained.
From this point though began the evolution of key features, most notably the greens and the hazards. By 1940 for example, Egan's imitation sand dunes had already been eliminated in favor of more formalized bunkers. Those bunkers and some of the greens would then undergo various levels of change in the following decades. Hazards largely stayed in place but took on different styles and sizes. Greens would get smaller and also appear to lose some contour, which is difficult to verify but follows typical trends and certainly seems to show up in some photos. These most noticeable of changes seemed to have settled down by the 1980s though and certainly by the 90s, which also happens to coincide with the increase of television exposure and popularity, especially with U.S. Opens. Except for fairway bunker changes to holes like the 3rd, 6th, and 15th in the mid 2000s, the course has largely appeared the same for at least 3 or 4 decades. This level of repeated familiarity among golfers and tv viewers seems to have fostered a sense of tradition and feeling that this is how the course always has been and always should be. The truth is obviously that “this” is not what it always was.
Egan's "imitation sand dunes" on the famous 7th at Pebble Beach. Image taken from The Golden Age of Golf Architecture by Geoff Shackelford.
Even forgetting the differences between the previous eras and focusing on this most recent one (c. 1990-present), there has still been a good amount of unnoticed change, mainly with greens shrinking, bunker sand building up around greens, and bunker edges becoming smoother and more formalized. Nowhere is this more evident than at the famous short 7th, which has a nice historical summary on the Pebble Beach website that I highly recommend taking a look at. Proponents may argue that the defense of the 105 yard hole is its small green, and while I agree with them in general principle, there is no doubting that the green has also shrunken away from the bunkers likely due to a combination of typical mowing shrinkage and sand buildup from recovery shots. A look at the images below from 1992 and the 2018 Pro-Am helps to demonstrate how much a green can change even if the basic idea remains and no active remodel work is done. There is no doubting how much closer the green was to the bunkers on the right and the left.
This 1992 photo courtesy of the Pebble Beach website shows a green that pushes out close to the bunkers, providing more hole locations while better engaging the hazards.
This instagram photo taken by me in 2018 shows a green much smaller and more disconnected from its surrounding hazards. Notice too the apparent downslopes from the bunkers to the green that would seem to indicate sand buildup over time and may partially explain the reason for the shrinkage. Note that I also think the bunkers themselves have gotten away from the green surface. It is a true rift in action.
This is a typical process that occurs on any golf course, and it is a good bet that it is common throughout the rest of Pebble Beach's greens. The "hourglass" 17th has been one of the most noticeable offenders with the green shrinking down to two very separate areas and looking to be about half the size or less of its original surface.
There have been some efforts recently to "restore" the greens to both size and shape using old photos. These are certainly an improvement and open up some hole locations and playability, especially at holes like 13 and the aforementioned 17th. With what I have seen in pictures and in person though, I think the work could have been gone more aggressively toward restoration. The images that are available tend to show greens that have more natural flowing contours both big and small, and the grass lines are more varied and intricate. Also in these images, the green sizes still appear to be bigger and pushed much closer to the edges in comparison to the "restored" versions.
The above gallery shows the progression of the "hourglass" green from the original to 2013's tiny version to the redone version seen today in the last two photos.
There are probably a number of reasons that these re-dos aren't as aggressive, some of which are likely out of the control of whomever is doing the work, but that is what seems to be the problem at Pebble Beach though. It still stands as a highly successful mega cash cow and coveted destination, and it has a reputation as one of the most prominent Tour and Major venues of all time. Either one of those factors on their own would make it difficult to facilitate change, but combine the two and, well, good luck. That said though, the Resort could face pressure from the rise of other golf destinations such as Bandon Dunes, Sand Valley, Streamsong, and Pinehurst, and its rankings are currently slipping as other prominent classics undergo aggressive restorations to their Golden Age origins. So, there is some glimmer of a chance, which opens up a whole litany of daydreams and discussions on what to do with the course. Should it be restored? How much should be restored? And if it is restored, to what time period do you restore it?
Here are some of my ideas...
Restoration: How much and to what time period?
For the sake of fun, let's discount the probability that a full restoration won't happen. We are dreaming big. How big exactly? Like any good first approach to analyzing a course, I would start with the greens and the routing. The routing is still mostly intact and one of the all time greats, so there is nothing to alter there. I would also agree that Jack Nicklaus's moving of the par 3 5th hole down to the oceanside was a good one, though admittedly I never saw the original and if it had anything notable to it. There is also no choice but to leave it anyway since the other land has been developed.
The greens of the golf course are a different story though. While the tilted targets are fearsome and provide strategy and challenge, it is obvious that there has been shrinkage and loss of corners, and a closer look also seems to show that many internal contours have softened or flattened as well. Beyond that, mowing lines have become simpler, and a great amount of short grass has been lost.
After the greens the next place to look is overall hole strategy. Outside of the greens becoming smaller targets, has anything else significantly changed in the way that any of the holes are played? From my analysis, I see bunkers pinching the 3rd hole, the arrangement changing greatly on the 6th, and a bunch of bunkers being added to the banal 15th hole. The most egregious change though comes at the 9th hole, where half of the fairway (the half hugging the clifftop no less) has been abandoned in what was likely an effort to make the hole "more difficult." These holes all ought to be addressed.
Bunkers are the next point of contention, as they have certainly morphed stylistically as well as changed places in some instances. What style do we think makes most sense? Is it from 1929? 1990? 2000? One of the many variations in between? My sense tends to lean toward the Golden Age, and while MacKenzie did not end up doing most of the bunkering, Egan did seem to be inspired by what he did do. I would weigh their work strongly against other iterations throughout time, but I would also consider those other versions and ask if they might make more sense.
After bunkers, I would take a look at the general aesthetic and presentation of the golf course. To me, it feels a bit stuck in the 80s/90s ideal where Manicured Everything reigns supreme and cart paths prominently feature. While they do a good job achieving this pristine presentation, it doesn't quite fit with the naturally beautiful landscape that the course is situated in.
So, where does this leave us? Well, it puts us right about at that 1929 high water mark, with a few notable exceptions...
The Bunkers: Which style do you go with?
MacKenzie/Egan bunkering on the 8th hole moves nicely as a composition, has naturally variable lines, and ties in beautifully and naturally to the adjoining cliffside.
This is the one place a dunescape could be "believable," but it would have to blend in a lot better to the hillside and 8th tees in order to be so. Pictures sourced from Simon Haines on Twitter.
Contrary to popular opinion among fellow architecture geeks and my own affinity for sand-scapes, I would ditch a full re-implementation of the "imitation sand dunes" and go with a hybridized mix of a few modern bunkers with the regular, non-dune Egan and MacKenzie bunkers though still adding dune-like elements in a few select places. There are a number of reasons for ditching the dunes, the first being the exact nature of the setting.
Pebble Beach, unlike much of neighboring Cypress Point and MPCC, is not a dunescape. It is a clifftop plain. While there is a loamy sand present on a lot of the top 12" or so on the site, there is clay immediately underneath and bedrock immediately underneath that. Dunes do not exist naturally here, and introducing them does two things problematically wrong.
The first problem is purely aesthetic. I am typically a proponent of dune-y sand, but I just don't think it works here. Perhaps it is the landscape architect or geology side of me, but a dunescape just randomly appearing at a green site compared to the rest of the property, which lacks such, is just not "believable" (believable in the sense that it is hard to believe that such a landscape could exist in a certain spot). The one exception could be out at the point where the 7th green lies, but even that would have to do a better job of blending into the surrounds than the first attempt, seen in the image to the side.
The other problem is a practical one and likely the reason that these features disappeared so quickly (in addition to the Great Depression and cutting maintenance costs). Sand likes to blow around. After all, this is how dunes are formed. When you pile a bunch of sand on top of clay and bedrock, where there is no natural binding to the subsurface, it will blow away entirely. I have to imagine that these features were very difficult to keep (especially in the Depression Era) and that they often made a big mess of the green and surrounds. You may be asking, "well there is still a bunch of sand around the green now, and they don't seem to have much problem now, do they?" You would be right, and the reason there is that the bunkers are concave and hold the sand in, rather than the convex form of a dune where sand is completely exposed to blowing and moving. They also likely receive irrigation overspray, which if trying to mimic a dunescape, you will need to limit that water to keep the vegetation from getting too thick. If you do that though, it will also dry out and be susceptible to blowing away.
Other than these imitation sand dunes though, I would largely if not entirely go back to the aesthetic set by Egan and MacKenzie. These bunkers were varied, beautiful, and flowed naturally with the landscape. They were rougher around the edge. They would naturally "bleed out" in places, such as the bunker spilling into the cliffs on number 8. While I don't think they work generally, there are some elements of the imitation dunes that would work too, mainly the more bunker-like aspects of them such as the set-down right side of 7 (which forms the basis of the current arrangement today) and nearly the entirety of the arrangement on 17. These aspects work both practically and aesthetically and could be incorporated in a restoration.
Regarding 7, I would largely go with the current bunker arrangement but make it much more rugged and natural, especially on the cliff side. Of all the versions I have seen, this current one is my favorite and not just because it has been the most photographed. I love the movement of the lines and the variation of scale with the large front bunker juxtaposed against the tiny ones ringing the right and back sides. I love the muscle and intimidation factor of the front lip. It's a very attractive arrangement fitting of the setting, and it has also tackled the practical measure of players walking on and off the green with the extra grass front left and back left. Can it all be better though? Absolutely. The biggest item would be adding more overall texture to the arrangement and setting. This can be done by breaking up the smooth lines of the edges, adding a variety of finer grasses to grow more naturally on those edges, and splashing sand in the native grasses on the low sides of the right side bunkers to make them blend more naturally into the cliffs. On the cliff edges, think a hybrid between the imitation dunes' tie-ins and what is there now. On the greenside, I'd like to see a closer proximity of the hazard to the putting surface, more short grass (putting and collar), and less of a downslope from the bunkers leading into the green, except for the front bunker, which I like hiding some of the front of the green and kicking forward shots that fall a bit short.
A mix of sprucing up the current arrangement and adding elements of Egan and MacKenzie could work quite well at the 7th. Also note the green shape and size, which is a little larger, closer to the bunkers, more internally contoured, and more irregular in shape. All that will be discussed in further detail in the next section.
The Greens: General Thoughts
While I am not proposing that the greens become one of the largest sets on Tour, returning them to their original sizes would make them a lot more interesting and likely still just as challenging. There is still a lot of tilt and speed on the greens, and having a longer downhill putt from the wrong side is arguably more difficult than being off the green at the same distance, where a player can generate some loft and spin to slow the ball down. If you were to reintroduce some of the subtle internal contouring that is apparent in the old photos, that would make things more difficult yet and further emphasize not just being on the green but also being in the right position on the green.
In making the greens larger and closer to their original sizes, they should also get tighter to their adjacent bunkers and hazards. Short grass should extend beyond the green until closer to the bunker edge, which would now be more irregular and rugged with longer fine fescue grasses. Doing all this will further engage the hazards with the putting surface and eliminate the current disconnect that exists with the multiple heights of cut and buffer of mowed rough.
Not only were the greens bigger and closer to the bunkers, the grass lines that formed their perimeters have changed over time as well, becoming more smooth and rounded versus the more irregular and naturally moving lines that they once possessed. Bringing back some of these intricate lines will really bring back that classic feel.
The above gallery shows just how far out greens would extend as well as the irregularly moving edge lines that come with doing so. Click on the images to enlarge. Images sourced from The Golden Age of Golf Architecture by Geoff Shackelford
Width and Strategy: Reintroduce Options
The fairway width as presented for the Pro Am and regular resort play (we won't even talk about what they do for the US Open) isn't really all that bad compared to the evolution of other comparable courses of its era. It could still be better in spots though. Some that stand out moderately are the second half of 8, hole 13, and many of the entries into the greens, which are narrower than they ought to be and take away running shots for many resort guests. Two places where changes to width and strategy really stand out though are at the 3rd and 9th holes.
[Use this link here at GolfCourseHistories.com to view changes to Pebble Beach from 1938 to 2013. Look for changes to bunkers, green sizes, and fairway widths, especially on holes 3 and 9.]
The 3rd hole doglegs left around a little ravine, pitches right to left throughout, and has a green that falls to the back left while being tightly defended from the right. Every aspect of this points to the left side being the ideal angle and the right side being an almost impossible place to miss the green. So why the need to add a long line of bunkers down the right side? Seems superfluous, doesn't it? It is already a penalty to be on the right side. If there was a place to add extra defense, it ought to be from the ideal angle down the left. Instead, these new bunkers sort of just guide you into position and double punish you if you miss right.
The 9th hole is a worse offender yet. When Egan did his work to the course, one of his focuses was the oceanside par 4 9th. The land weaves in and out with cliffs falling to the beach on the right, and one of the biggest bow-outs is a lower shelf sitting in the middle-to-short range landing area. Egan thus extended the fairway all the way out to the edge of this point, giving the player an alternate option and what would actually be the better angle into the left to right sloping green. At some point though, this lower right fairway was abandoned. It is still loosely maintained as a native area, but it has been totally overtaken by the highly invasive and thick kikuyu grass, which is also visually unattractive.
Egan's hole had "decidedly two routes" as you can see above with the lower right shelf of fairway. Left image from The Golden Age of Golf Architecture.
The current hole as seen above has decidedly one route.
You can technically still play out to this area, but your lie is not likely to be very good, that is if you can even find your ball. Bringing back this fairway to me would be one of the most important design moves of any restoration effort. While Pebble Beach is great overall, one of its weaker points design-wise is its number of opportunities for strategic decision making. A large part of this is due to the small, tightly guarded greens, and another part is the the set up of many holes, which rely more heavily on execution versus thinking. Bringing back the full 9th fairway would help change this, diversifying the playing qualities of Pebble Beach while also adding beauty and further engagement with the ocean.
The Overall Aesthetic: How to make it feel "classic" again
Except for when the U.S. Open comes to town and the USGA dries the course out and grows the grass long on the bunker lips, Pebble Beach generally feels like a resort course stuck in that 80s and 90s trend we talked about earlier. Lush green ryegrass/poa turf is standard. There are acres of mowed rough, and the fairways get a very manicured "checkerboard" mowing pattern. Bunkers are "perfect," and edges have been smoothed out and kept short. Asphalt cart paths are everywhere.
In one of the most striking natural environments for golf, Pebble Beach currently does almost all they can to make the course appear unnatural. Fortunately, this isn't that tough of a fix, especially with Pebble Beach's resources. Homogeneity among grass types through the green makes it easy to adjust grass lines, and in doing so I would push the fairways out wider, reduce or eliminate the amount of mowed rough, and reintroduce native grass areas further out of play. For these native areas, fine fescues should dominate, and other fine-textured native species and wildflowers* should be mixed in for diversity. Thin-ness and playability should be emphasized, especially nearer to fairways and zones of play. There are experts who specialize in this very thing, and I would look at bringing them in to implement and manage the changes. Also, designing the irrigation system to not touch these areas is critical.
Changing the mowing patterns on the fairways is an easy fix too, though it may be possible that the current pattern is somewhat "burned in." I would advocate for the "half and half" pattern seen on many classic courses and at Pebble Beach itself seen in the photo below. It is much less visually distracting, feels more natural, and actually saves a bit of labor time compared to striping.
A simple half and half mowing pattern on the old 9th hole is less distracting from the beautiful natural surrounds. Also note how wide the fairway is, and this isn't even the widest part!
The last place where a high impact visual change could be made is with the man-made components of the course--cart paths and accessories. Black top cart paths are everywhere at Pebble Beach. Sadly, many may be necessary to have due to heavy resort play cart traffic and maintenance during wet winters, but do they need to be as extraneous as they currently are? The open stretch of holes 6-14 is where the worst offenders lie, with parallel and double paths in multiple places. Perhaps there is some reason of tournament traffic or concern of safety, but it would still seem to me that there is plenty of space and ways to consolidate and reduce these paths.
At the very least, these paths ought to be consolidated.
Look at the satellite images above. What should stand out is how close together some of these parallel paths are as well as how visually exposed they are. These ought to be combined into one path as much as possible, and if agronomy and traffic would somehow allow, be eliminated entirely.
For whatever paths do remain, I would look at introducing a more natural appearing material. Crushed stone with a compatible earth tone color could work in areas not prone to washouts. In those areas where a hard surface is necessary, there are some newer alternatives out there that will mix a material of your choice with a hardening polymer. I've seen mixed results of this product, but I think if a sub-base was created similar to the preparation done for concrete, it could hold up well while having the appearance from a distance of being a natural sandy/stony path. I would also look at hiding paths more with native grass areas as much as possible while still maintaining golfer access to their shots in the fairways. The end overall goal would be to eliminate as much of the man-made element that comes with the presence of paths.
Other man made elements to consider are the "accessories" you find out on the course--tee markers, ball washers, signs, bunker rakes, benches, flagsticks, etc. Whether you realize it or not, these things have the ability to either detract or add to the feel of the golfing experience. Non-natural, plastic accessories can feel cheap and very out of place on a grand natural site like Pebble Beach, which should incorporate only natural or classic, pre-1940s elements. I would look to using wood for bunker rakes, something locally unique for tee markers (shells, rocks, Cypress branches, etc.), and a flagstick design that really feels "Golden Age." I've seen firsthand how these detailed touches can really help amplify the feel of a restoration, and it would be no different at a course like Pebble Beach
*Not gazanias from South Africa (or anything not indigenous to coastal California), which appeared seemingly out of nowhere on the 8th hole in 2018 but were soon extricated.
Hypothetical plan and notes of how Pebble Beach could be brought closer to its 1929 vintage while still serving its modern needs
Summary
Pebble Beach is one of the grand and special experiences in golf. Its combination of beauty, drama, challenge, and history is arguably unrivaled. It is truly iconic. But a deeper look into that history reveals a modern version of the course that could still be better. Greens expansions would allow for a greater variety of hole locations and being able to “tuck” pins, both of which provide strategic flexibility. Reintroducing green contours and subtle texture would add character as well as make birdies much harder to come by for the pros. Fairway widening would reintroduce strategy as well as make it a bit easier and more fun for the regular resort player. Restoring bunkers and adding more rugged, natural texture to them would make them better fit the landscape and add to the golfing experience. And lastly, consolidating and naturalizing paths, increasing truly native plants and diversity to the natural areas, and simplifying the mowing patterns will all have a net benefit to increasing the pleasure of a walk and a game at Pebble Beach.
These ideas are not radical. They maintain all the core components of the golf course—the routing, the greens, and the overall strategy—but also seek to restore lost elements within those that will only make the course more beautiful and more interesting to play. And isn’t that what we all want out of our golf?
Will this ever happen? Probably not any time soon, and maybe not ever. But at least for now, we can daydream about it.