Is the 11th green at Pasatiempo being reconstructed?

[Mike_Golden]

Geoff,

I haven't played Yale, GCGC, or Yeaman's so can't comment but certainly think that  historic courses deserve to be preserved.  Unfortunately, with the changes in equipment and balls and the way courses are conditioned today it can make totally faithful preservation difficult when one considers that resistance to scoring is always going to be an important consideration in an overall course rating.

The two courses I know best of the ones you mention (BB and Pasa) have been renovated and I think both of them have been true to the tradition of the original design even if they haven't been restored to the exact original configuration.  Pasa is really difficult because of all the trees planted to prevent players on adjoining fairways from being killed by errant shots but it seems to me that Tom has tried to bring back the original feel of the course (including putting back bunkers on several holes-9,10, 12 and now 11 as well as rerouting the cart path on #15)-it's hard to quarrel about the changes made to a course that is only 6400 yards from the tips and still can kick your ass.  The Black's renovation in some ways is less faithful but fortunately Rees wasn't allowed to change the basic nature of the bunkering so it is still the Tillie masterpiece.

[Tom_Doak]

Geoffrey:

The second course I took as a consulting client was Garden City Golf Club.

At the time I was unsure whether to take the job or not, because I had a feeling they wanted to change some things, and at 28 I was still the purest of the pure.  I called Ben Crenshaw and asked him what I should do.

He asked me who else they were considering, and after I told him, he said I should take the job and try to preserve as much as I could.

I still believe in preservation as the #1 goal of any consulting work ... preserving any original work I can.  [Once a feature has been previously altered, I don't mind going back to try and fix it, if I feel it can be done.]  I would also do drainage work that needed to be done, but I don't remember Ian asking me that question; if he had, my reply would have been that MacKenzie and Ross seldom left many drainage problems which needed fixing.

However, when you get to a green like the 11th at Pasatiempo, where I've held them off for 6-8 years on doing the work and just watched the greens get FASTER instead of slower as recommended, and where the green has been messily altered already ... at some point reality must set in.

Mike G:  You can try to preserve "resistance to scoring" but don't call that restoration, or preservation.

[A_Clay_Man]

What will happen to the "new" "softer" greens when the Poa takes over agin?

Isn't all this work predicated on the choice of A-4?

[GeoffreyC]

Adam- interesting question.

Ian - In my opinion your work at CC of Scranton is truly excellent and I'm glad the members did not ask you to alter the best Travis greens I've seen. Curious what you would do if they asked you to change that 18th green? (no need to answer in this forum but an interesting thought anyway).

Look guys- I'm a realist with regard to "restoration", living organisms on a course that change over time and most of all the change in the game itself. I don't have to like it or agree with it.

Tom Doak- Your conversation with Ben Crenshaw certainly puts things into perspective and of course I'd rather have your hand involved then Roger Rulewich (as one random sample of restoration architects   ). Still- can't someone stand up for as true a preservation as possible. Is there anyone, architect or player or writer who is in a powerful enough position to have some influence and who could educate those powerful members at historic courses? Tom, do you think you or Ben Crenshaw are in such a position now?

Afterall, in a few years someone might want to change that "Sitwell Park-like green at 205 yard par 3 13th at Barnbougle Dunes.    

[ian]

Geoff,

I have been in Tom's shoes on green reconstruction. When you rebuild a green by Thompson, Travis or Mackenzie, to many people you are simply wrong for doing the work.

I'll explain with an example:

I rebuilt the 2nd green at Cataraqui. This was an outstanding green by Thompson (one of his best). The issue was the famous back pin was 5.5% and the front and left was 6%. The superintendent pinned the same two locations in the middle of the green.

The board and super wanted the green flattened and the 2.5 foot shelf removed (eliminating the back pin). I convinced the club to keep the green, but to flatten the back shelf to 3% and to raise the front left to get the green to 3% in the heart and 3.5% in the left corner. I felt I kept the design of the green by softening the slopes rather than another radical answer.

I was criticized in the press for this work by a member of the club (who is also a member at the Thompson Society); it left me bitter since I had tried so hard to preserve the green in the first place. I had done what I could to keep the spirit of the green the best I could, and it wasn't good enough for him.

I feel for your situation at Yale and I wish it was in the hands of George Bahto. All architects know exactly who should do the restoration work with each club. I'm quite confident in Tom working at Pasatiempo.

[ed_getka]

Just my two cents, but preservation doesn't seem to be a viable alternative in many cases these days, what with distance gains and green speeds. It seems to me that to try and make changes with the architects intent in mind is most important, given that the membership is the one calling the shots. I would much rather have Tom trying to maintain the integrity of the course instead of him turning down the work because a preservation isn't possible.

[Jeff Goldman]

I played Pasa for the first time today (and my first good dr. course), and the green sites and surrounds were fantastic, as were the gorgeous bunkers.  Having never seen the greens, we had no chance-a ton of 3 putts (but no 8s!). We got to play 11 as well, and thank god it was rainy or we'd still be putting.  At speed, a lot of greens might be ridiculous.  Wow. More later.

Jeff Goldman

[T_MacWood]

This has been one of the most informative threads in GCA history...thanks to Geoff Childs questions and Tom Doak's honest answers. We rarely get tough questions being asked restoration icons like Doak, Hanse, Prichard, etc....and even when they are asked...how often do we get a response...almost never.

I learned that restoration architects will take jobs to prevent other infamous architects from getting their hands on a golf course...not something addressed on GCA in the past...as far as I can remember.

I believe it is very healthy to question the actions of architects who are known for their respectful stance on old architecture. There shouldn't be a double standard...although their good work should be ballanced with any potential transgression. I hope Doak doesn't quit his consulting work...taking heat here and there should be worth the preservation of some of these great old designs.

This thread also illustrates the destructive pressure of green speeds...it is a major dilemma. Are there any golf clubs out there who have held their groung...refused to get into the speed game...held their speeds at say 7, 8 or 9...to preserve their original contours?

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom, There are courses out there that realize the futility. They are not all classic courses, either.

Black Mesa, which is just a few years old, has bold contouring, and keeps it's greenspeed in check. Around 9.

Howey in the hills Fl.'s Mission Inn (1926) had speeds closer to 6, last year when I was there.

[JakaB]

So now the question is:  Barney, does this qualify as yet another example of a favorite son getting a free pass from the Treehouse?

So...Am I supposed to get excited because Geoff made some Childs like rant and Tom crafted a response with facts that exposed Geoffs ignorance in restoration/renovation matters....It was kinda of unrealworldy for this site...so kudoes to both..I'm kinda sick of historians who feel that the members of some of the great courses in the country should suffer through slow greens just because....just because the classic architects didn't have modern agronomics and just because of the historians read one book play one time mentality.   Geoff's comments on Yeamans Hall were not a high point for this site no matter who the architect....He can have his opinion but don't celebrate it just because it flies in the face of this sites perceived common sense..

In other words....I don't think it is fair for the members of Pasa to suffer through slow greens day after day so I can take a step back in time on their dime...

[T_MacWood]

John K
I'm tired of golfers bitching that greens that aren't 10 or 11 cause them to "suffer." If you want suffering check out Indonesia.

If anything the members of Pasateimpo and Crystal Downs have been 'suffering' from unputtable greens the last few years because some idiot thinks anything but 10 or 11 is suffering.

I believe the average greenspeed in the mid 1970's was 6.5', I enjoyed the game in the 70's. How about you? I suspect golfers in the 20's and 30's enjoyed ANGC, St.Andrews and NGLA at slower speeds as well. If you need 10 or 11 to enjoy a green...that green is poorly designed. Ironic that the worst architects are bringing the best down with them.

[Rick Shefchik]

A reply from the member about additional greens being softened.

"...Slowing the greens down wouldn't really work because most of the members and myself included prefer them to be fast. Also that is one of the only ways to keep the course difficult. You can already over power the course as its only 6500 yds from the tips so you need the fast greens to make all the undulations difficult to read..."

This may be the single most significant/revealing quote I've read on this site. It is the issue around which almost everything else we discuss revolves: right or wrong, members rule. They are changing the courses we love into something they think they'll like better, and we can't do a damn thing about it.

Pasatiempo is not the perfect example of this syndrome, because it is open to the public. But I think what's happening there points out clearly how much influence we armchair architects have: almost zero.

I thought the 16th green at Pasatiempo was one of the greatest I'd ever seen. I also thought it was too fast to be properly enjoyed. I'd have raised the mowers; the club members are going to lower the slope.

Guess what's going to happen to #7 at Shinnecock before the next Open?

[GeoffreyC]

JakaBS

you say "Geoff's comments on Yeamans Hall were not a high point for this site no matter who the architect....He can have his opinion but don't celebrate it just because it flies in the face of this sites perceived common sense.."

Have you been to Yeamans Hall one or more times or is this another of your thoughtless rants?  Have you played it once yet alone multiple times?  Have you spent 3 or 4 hours touring the course in a cart with one of the world's most respected restoration architects while carefully looking at topography, bunkers and greens?

If the answer is yes then your opinion counts. If not it is yet another example of your typing without using your mind. Your post is stupid even for you.

Did not Tom Doak admit that the 1st green was the only one he didn't do and he wanted it redone?

Didn't Tom Doak admit that the new greens are not Raynor originals but his interpretation of what they previously were?

Didn't Tom Doak admit that he wanted the club to restore all the lost fairway bunkers on the front nine but the club wouldn't go for it?

I'd say that's quite a bit of solid information about the club and its current status with regard to its heritage. It's a really fine course and a GREAT experience. It's not fully restored and in my opinion could be better with a bit more or Tom's hand- If you think this opinion and the facts uncovered in this discussion "flies in the face of this sites perceived common sense." - well what can I say?

[Tom_Doak]

Rick S:  I think it's an overstatement to imply that members of clubs everywhere are hell bent to change their greens.  A lot of clubs are watching their bottom line and aren't about to pony up for a $1 million or $2 million restoration, whether it's justified or not.

However, I do think that many clubs are jumping on the "restoration bandwagon" as a result of it being popularized in several forums ... everywhere from the Ross and MacKenzie societies to the ASGCA's "Remodeling University" to Golf Club Atlas ... without any clear idea of whether they have cause to or not.

One prominent example in my own experience is Holston Hills Country Club.  The golf course has been exceptionally well preserved from the early years, and the first time I saw it in the late 1980's, I thought all it really needed was some tree clearing and putting sand in a handful of bunkers which had been grassed over.  

When I first started consulting there, in about 1994 or 95, they didn't know if they wanted to spend the money to buy sand for those bunkers!  Then in 1998 they suddenly decided to rebuild the greens to USGA specs [on the advice of the USGA Green Section and their new, now ex-, superintendent], and they relied mostly on a contractor to get the contours back where they were supposed to be.  Now, they want to rebuild most or all of the bunkers on the course, next year.

I did not recommend either of those big projects; I tried to talk them out of both.  They were carried through club politics by well-intentioned green chairmen or presidents who wanted to put the club's money back into the golf course, instead of some budget-busting clubhouse renovation.

Some of the clubs which HAVE spent big dollars on their renvoations just blow me away.  Lahinch is another ... I think most of the work done there is quite good, but it all stems from a "safety audit" and from the members going to too many MacKenzie Society dinners where other clubs were boasting about THEIR restoration work.

[Mike_Golden]

Having lived in the Bay Area for a long time and having spoken with several members over the years I think I have some level of understanding of the desire for green speed at Pasa.

First of all,the green speeds aren't a problem for members because they know the greens so well.  I've remember playing with a member once who had a putt below the 9th hole and played it almost around the edge of the green and at least 6 feet behind the hole-amazingly enough, the ball wound up 2" from the hole.  So no member is going to feel overwhelmed by any of the greens on the course even at the current speeds.  Additionally, any member of a private club wants outsiders to have a really tough time scoring on their course.  It's only human to have pride in the course you play all the time and what better way to feel pride than to have low handicappers not play to their index in either a friendly game or an interclub match.  At Lake Merced we have the National 2 Ball Tournament in May and the green speeds are over the top and the course plays much tougher than normal.

Pasa, since it allows public play, has more access from outsiders than most other private clubs so more of us have played the course under the normal conditions, which, for Pasa, is very fast greens.  If we were members there we would learn where to put the ball on the greens for any pin placement and within a couple of months would routinely play to our index and not think anything of it;  as outsiders we play there infrequently and find the green speeds troublesome.

It's the same thing at public access courses like Rustic Canyon;  I played there yesterday with His Highness and David Kelly and both of them know exactly where to hit the ball and how every putt breaks;  I've only played the course about 8 times and can't putt to save my a** so have problems out there that would go away if I played the course every weekend for a couple of months.

[Sean_A]

I agree with Mike G.  The greens in the UK are generally much slower than the US.  I think Americans often think that good greens is the same concept as fast greens.  Many of the great courses of the UK rarely reach the speeds of US courses.  When a group of Brits played a 3 day event at Grosse Ile (there are 6 or 7 severe greens when they are rolling 10+) we were beaten quite easily because guys didn't understand the greens.  You simply cannot play above the hole.  The members didn't have much of a problem because of their local knowledge.  

I personally would prefer the greens slower.  I feel the golfer would be tempted to be more aggressive on many of the holes.  There is still a penalty to pay by putting/chipping down a severe slope if one is too aggressive.  As it is now, it is mostly stupidity rather than calculated risk to get caught above the hole.  

However, at UofM, the green speeds were just as quick, but the contouring is much less severe (except for #3).  I think 10 is a good speed there, but I would take the Grosse Ile greens (even rolling too fast) over UofM because they are mucher more fun to play.

Does anybody know if the greens at Grosse Ile are more or less original Ross?

Ciao

Sean

[Bill Gayne]

I've never been to Pasatiempo. When I look at pictures of the 11th green and a picture of a possible approach shot from the fairway, I don't see any excessive contours or anything that makes the green over the top. It looks like it has a ridge that runs through the middle of it. But a lot of greens have centerline ridges. The green does appear to be small but not on the extreme side. Except for speed is there anything that the two dimensional picture is not telling me? What's in the contouring of this green makes it so difficult or is the difficulty a result of maintenance?


http://www.golfarch.com/Pasatiempo/pasa_11.asp

http://www.golfshots.com/gallery.htm

(unfortunately, the second photo can't be cut and paste so it's necessary to select california and this will lead to the picture I'm viewing.)

[Bill Gayne]

Dave,

Thanks, the level of slope does not come through in the pictures.

[Pete Lavallee]

Sorry I mised this most interesting discussion while home for X-mas. Can anyone speculate what greenspeed would be necessary to allow balls to come to rest on the back portion of the 11th green (for those who haven't played there, balls will only stay at rest on the upper portion if it has recently rained)? I suspect that it frankly would be too much to ask the Club to maintain this green and the other 17 at such a cut.

Have any of the greens actually settled over time; adding to the the slope that the Good Doctor originally installed? The course is built on a very geographically unstable area, with its proximity to the Loma Priata fault line. Would the restorationists object to changing the greens if it was to undo this effect?

[NAF]

bumping to the top given other thread

[Geoffrey Childs]

bringing to the top.

[Tim Taylor]

Yes, the green is being reconstructed. I spoke to Charlie in the Pasatiempo pro shop about playing there during the week of July 11 while I'm out there for business. He told me there is a temporary green on 11.

We chatted about it. I asked who was doing the work. He said Doak. I told him that it confirmed what I heard on GCA and he asked me to email him a link to the thread, which I did.

That being said, anyone wanna play Pasa early on Tueday July 12?

TimT