I played Pasatiempo about ten days ago. It was the second time I have played it--the last time some 11 years ago. The course continues to astound me. If an architect today laid out nine north-south holes and routed all four par 4s straight south and routed all three par 3s and both par 5s straight north, he would be laughed out of town. The routing seems to follow the original routing in the 1929-1931 photos in the clubhouse, so I assume it hasn't changed much. However, it seems to work at Pasatiempo because the individual holes are quite different.
It seemed to me that No. 10 had changed. I recall a giant tree on the right side of the fairway and not much bunkering at the green. The tree is gone, and the green now is protected by seven left-side bunkers which cover all but the right-most corner of the green (although the approach is banked to funnel a shot onto the green). No. 11 remains a great hole; No. 12 is just fair; No. 13 is okay; No. 14 is one of the great par 4s in America and No. 15 reminds me of No. 7 at Pebble Beach--a really neat short-iron challenge that just fits in the land; No. 16 is, in my opinion, one of the most overrated par 4s in America--a flagstick atop a crowned, blind fairway and a green unlike any other on the course and virtually impossible to putt (although I must be wrong because I see architects trying to duplicate it, like Jay Morrish at Troon North (No. 10) and Mike Strantz at Royal New Kent, among others); No. 17 is mediocre--a group of pros behind us were pitchig in from abut 70-80 yards, and No. 18 is excellent if one doesn't have a problem with par 3 closers. I recall Tom Fazio once stating that many of the old-time classic courses usually had about six great holes, about six good holes and about six just-fair holes. Pasatiempo, I think, fits into that mold.