Confusing MacKenzie quote

[George Freeman]

"I think the 16th hole is the best two-shot hole I know. I certainly do not know of any hole which gives so great an advantage to length and accuracy."

-Dr. Alister MacKenzie, The Spirit of St. Andrews, talking about the 16th hole at Pasatiempo


Patrick H's pick of the 16th at Pasa in the Mock Draft reminded me of this quote by the good Doc and how I had found it perplexing when I read it in his book and I still find it to be.

"I certainly do not know of any hole which gives so great an advantage to length and accuracy."

This specific part of the quote is not something I would have associated with MacKenzie and his favorite par 4.  Wouldn't a 500 yd par 4 with tight trees, bunkering or water down each side of the fairway and a fronting pond give the ultimate advantage to length and accuracy?  Or a 200 yard par 3 to an island green?  The quote says nothing about strategy specifically (however I'm not saying the 16th at Pasa has no strategy, I haven't even played it).

Does anyone else find the same thing about this part of his quote or am I looking at it all wrong?

Cheers

[Pete Lavallee]

George,

Have you played the 16th at Pasa? There is a hogs back in the landing zone, about 220 yards from the back tee, that will reject balls hit right even further right; away from the green. Balls hit left of center will be funneled down the fairway on the dogleg left. Those who can carry the knob will get a turbo boost from its downslope, down the fairway to wedge range. So accuracy is good, and accuracy with distance is even better. Distance alone will probably put you in the trees punching out.

[Brian Phillips]

Pete,

That is wonderful explanation of a hole that I have never played but now understand perfectly.  Thank you.

[Niall C]

George,

Have you played the 16th at Pasa? There is a hogs back in the landing zone, about 220 yards from the back tee, that will reject balls hit right even further right; away from the green. Balls hit left of center will be funneled down the fairway on the dogleg left. Those who can carry the knob will get a turbo boost from its downslope, down the fairway to wedge range. So accuracy is good, and accuracy with distance is even better. Distance alone will probably put you in the trees punching out.

Pete

What happens to the shorter hitter ? What are his options ? Does he have a relatively safer shot of the tee but harder/longer second ?

Is Mac really saying that accurancy with length is essential ?

Like George, I haven't played the hole so interested to hear more.

Niall

[Kalen Braley]

Niall,

As one who falls into the shorter-medium hitter camp, the 16th doesn't play very long from the whites...less than 370 IIRC.  When I played it during the 2008 KP, I hit a mediocre 3w and still only had 5 iron into the green.  It is a hole where one needs to be accurate, but distance was not as critical.

[Niall C]

Kalen

It sounds to me from what you're saying that the hole has lost a lot of its bite over the years. There doesn't seem to be much of an incentive to go long.

Niall

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Kalen

It sounds to me from what you're saying that the hole has lost a lot of its bite over the years. There doesn't seem to be much of an incentive to go long.

Niall

Maybe a little but Niall but depending on where the pin is it can help a lot to have a shorter club in your hand in order to get it on the right tier of the green to putt from.

I've told this story before but when I played it two years ago with my dad who is a 20 handicapper, he hit the two best shots of his life (no exaggeration) Driver about 240-250 down the middle with a little draw and then 7 or 8 iron I think that landed on the top tier. The pin was middle tier (which is only 3-4 steps flat for those that haven't played it) and he hit a perfect putt 90 degrees to the hole on the top tier that just fell down the tier and missed the hole by an inch... and then ran all the way down to the bottom. After a 6-putt for his 8 he was smiling bigger than I could have imagined. He loved every second of his quadruple bogey.

[Pete Lavallee]

Naill,

The hole was perfectly designed for the persimmon era; it took a good drive to clear the knob. The real threat the hole possessed was that if you could not shape the ball right to left, you ran the real risk of the knob rejecting your tee shot into the trees on the right with a bad angle to the green and a shot of about 200 yards in; don't ask me how I know this. At the point that better players gained an extra 30-40 yards off the tee this hole no longer presented problems to them; I'm sure most low markers play their tee shot with a 3 wood now to avoid going too far down the fairway where you can go into the creek that guards the front of the green. The hole remains an excellent challange for mere mortals to this day however.

[Tom Huckaby]

Has anyone on this thread played the hole in the last year or so?

I ask because some of what is stated no longer applies.

The trees down the left have been cut back A LOT - one can pretty much see the green from the tee now.  So whereas Pete is correct about how the hole once was - with the trees overhanging and covering the whole left side, a hook was required off the tee - and thus it was a fine test of how one can play an accurate hook anyway - as it is now, it plays pretty darn wide even with the hogsback fairway.  Pete also has it correct that it was a fine test of distance in the persimmon era, but it surely no longer is today... today a simple 3wood down the left side can get even an average-hitter like me to 120 in (as it did on 12/28).  One can hit a simple hybrid or long iron to the top of the hill and have 160 or so.  Niall you are exactly right - no one of any length can afford to hit driver there any more - a well struck driver will go through the right side or even down into the creek fronting the green.

In any case, the bottom line is that the tee shot no longer gives all that much challenge at all.  I tend to think that's actually a GOOD THING... the required hook before, to the hogsback, was a bit too much....

But then again, wouldn't the trees have had to have been a lot sparser (ie like they are now) when Mackenzie made the statement?  So just how was it all that great a test of accuracy in his day?  As I say, take away the left trees and it's actually pretty darn wide...

The green of course is genius or madness depending on how one looks at such things, and thus the hole is always going to give sufficient challenge to mere mortals*. 

It's just obvious Mackenzie's quote really doesn't fly today... and I wonder if it ever did?  Methinks the good doctor was not above hyperbole.

TH

*Steve Pieracci, having stuffed an iron to 6 feet and birdied the hole on 12/28, is obviously immortal.

[Jason Topp]

"I think the 16th hole is the best two-shot hole I know. I certainly do not know of any hole which gives so great an advantage to length and accuracy."

-Dr. Alister MacKenzie, The Spirit of St. Andrews, talking about the 16th hole at Pasatiempo


I think the quote needs to be read in the context of Mackenzie's 13 Priniciples - primarily his statement that a course should give an advantage for bold play but give the average player a reasonable way around the course.

I do think the hole has lost some of its bite over time.  From the back tees on a wet course a couple of weeks ago - Huckaby and Pieriacci hit 3 woods to catch the slope and the perfect location on the far left portion of the green.  I had to hit a driver and also put it in the correct spot.  Thus the "distance" part of Mackenzie's quote probably no longer applies.

Nonetheless, the hole is a very interesting test.  An ideal tee shot yields a 120-150 yard approach from a relatively level lie.  A bailout right off the tee leaves an approach of 180 yards or so from a sideslope over the bunker on the front right of the green.  The green demands a very accurate approach (Ran's picture below is close to the ideal line).  The middle tier might be the most difficult pin position but there are some sublevels within that level that makes putting very tricky.

[Tom Huckaby]

Great stuff Jason.

Yes, the distance part of Mackenzie's quote no longer applies.  But I'd argue that at least for the tee shot, the accuracy part also no longer applies, and I question if it ever did.  Come on, no greater test?  Heck I can think of many greater tests on that course alone....

But you are of course very correct that it remains an interesting test, for sure.  With that green, it's never going to be easy.  Patrick's Dad notwithstanding however, I don't see much of an advantage anyway to getting it to where we all did... it's still a tough shot in.. and how much harder is it (if any) from on top of the hill?  If you'll recall, you and I got it to the "A" spot off the tee... damn near the shortest shot one could leave in... Pieracci was back a little, on top of the hill... now of course it's easy to base this on results as he stuffed it and neither you or I came close to doing such, but even beyond that, I have to wonder if his more "level" shot from 20 yards back wasn't even a better way in than ours going uphill from closer?  And given it's pretty simple to get to that spot, well howe great of a test is this for anyone?

Obviously if one bails too far right, that's gonna leave a very tough shot.  I just don't think it's all that tough - for any golfer - as the hole is presented today and how it must have been when Mackenzie made the quote - to get to the top of the hill, have 150-160 in,  with a level shot to what actually is a very large green.  The test is then going to be distance control on the iron shot, to get it to the proper level - oh my yes, fail to do that and any score can happen - but again, is controlling the distance of a 150 yard shot really the ultimate test of anything?

I'm gonna stick with the good doctor going overboard here.  But do note that I have never been the great fan of 16 that many are... oh I think it's a damn fine hole, for sure... but I've always though each of 11, 10 and 14 are superior....

TH

[Jason Topp]

Great stuff Jason.

I'm gonna stick with the good doctor going overboard here.  But do note that I have never been the great fan of 16 that many are... oh I think it's a damn fine hole, for sure... but I've always though each of 11, 10 and 14 are superior....

TH

Tom - Steve did not miss by much.  He was less than 10 yards right of us.

When I first played the course (around 1994) my playing companions indicated that there used to be a tree in the fairway on the right side that had a huge impact on the hole.  I am not quite sure where it was located.  Do you have any memory of such a tree and how it impacted the bailout tee shot?

[Tom Huckaby]

Jason:  maybe it's just pain of memory of poor play, but I placed him higher up and farther back.  In any case, my analysis turns not on where he was in reality (I am fully prepared to have that wrong) but where I THINK he was... and I remain unconvinced that 120 or so and lower is better than 150 or so and level.

I too recall the trees coming out more on the right, but given I can't remember where a golf ball was less than two weeks ago, asking me to place a tree prior to 1994 is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Niall C]

Tom

I note your comments regarding width now and then. MacK was known for width. The question then forms in my mind, how wide was the fairway and how steep was the hogsback to throw balls into the rough ?

I'm with you on MacK using hype and this would seem to be a case in point but using a hogsback to narrow a fairway is a clever idea. The old 11th at Silloth had something similiar. MacK had a hand in remodelling Silloth but I can't recall if the 11th was one of his ideas. Was this an original MacK idea or did he get it from elsewhere ?

Niall

[Tom Huckaby]

Niall - as to who did what and when and why, that is way way way beyond me.  I also have no clue whether he added that hogsback to the fairway, or whether it is a natural landform.. sure looks natural to me.  In any case, yes it does make an otherise wide fairway play effectively narrower, and that is one of the great parts of the golf hole.  It's just that he's talking in such superlatives, well... assuming the trees were as they are now, it's not the greatest ANYTHING.

Tough test?  Sure.  Interesting golf hole?  Sure.  I certainly do not know of any hole which gives so great an advantage to length and accuracy?  Only if you fail to play some of the other holes on that course, not to mention hundreds if not thousands more world-wide.

[Garland Bayley]

Could Dr. M be referring to getting to exactly the right postion to enable bringing the ball in on the ground? Is wind often a factor there?

[Rob Rigg]

The 16th at Pasa is a really cool hole, especially for the first time visitor, but I think the good Doctors quote is dated.

On paper, a semi-blind tee shot with the Hogsback followed by an approach across the baranca, the biggest bunker on the course, to a green that is severely tiered and drastically downhill from front to back, would be daunting.

But a wedge or short iron appraoch will minimize one's heart rate to a certain degree and make the hole play much easier.

16 is a brilliant hole, very compelling for sure, but it has certainly lost its "all world challenging" reputation over time with the advancement of technology.

Regardless, the vision of MacKenzie to create what appears to be a natural hole is amazing - at the time of creation - the 16th must have been a real monster to take on - a wonderful hole indeed.

[Kalen Braley]

Robb,

I would echo those sentiments.  To this day the 16th green complex is the biggest wow moment I've had on a golf course as I walked over the hogs back and it unfolded before me.  Its a very impressive and intimidating target given death both short, left, and long.  At the same time, the green is so massive and undulating that is almost seems preposterous someone would build something so bold on a golf course.

Its nothing short of awesome in my book.