Lets go cut down some trees!

[THuckaby2]

Jeff:

Good stuff, but:

1. Absent the trees on the right, can't you just blast away with even greater impugnity?  That is, you have no fear whatsoever of the right miss... That's the entire point here.  With the trees, even for bombers like you there has to be some trepidation... take away the trees and it really is bombs away, no caution, no thought, no nothing.  Maybe it's that way already for you - if so, this entire thread is moot.  But for the 99.9% of players who can't easily clear the tree on the left, well....I just can't see making the drive easier making this a better golf hole.  Not this golf hole anyway.

2. Tommy's pic to me makes the hole look more "inviting" - absolutely.  But you see, that's the entire point!  On this tee shot the last thing one needs is for it to be inviting.  It is meant to be DIFFICULT!  

It's been said many times above.  No need to re-hash yet again... just wanted to clarify my position here as you seem to have missed it.

In any case, I never mentioned the safety issues because such are obvious.  Oh yeah, that's WHY the trees are there.  But the assumption for sake of this discussion is that we remove these issues... go back to the time of my limited, more aware, less litigious play....

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, I think you need to write a book on Golf Architecture and how you see it, as wel as how it completely debunks the theories of Dr. Alister MacKenzie. If you don't have time for that, then how about an In My Opinion piece. Just stop posting for a couple of hours and you'll get it done FAST.

And if you respond to this angrily, then you have no sense of humor because that is the way it was intended!

On the serious side, I think the trees suck, and it is obvious that the intent was much like Max Behr had wrote about during that time--that there should be no encumbrance of a drawn line on how to play a golf hole. MacKenzie embraced those ideas, as it is seen in his shared fairways throughout his works, especially at Pasatiempo #1 & 9, 6 & 7, 10 & 17, 11 & 12, and maybe even 13 & 14. The reason why it gets so tight there is because it was designed to be an open play arena, and yes it is now WAY too tight in many areas, more specifically #6 specifically because of the trees. Yes, it hampers the golf course totally and keeps it from being even better then it once was.

Does anyne have an idea just how beautiful Pasatiempo could be if those trees were cut down, the course as closed to outside play, and 30 rounds or less a day were played on it with complete confidence that no one would be in harms way? (only because of one (1) unfortunate incident a few years after the course had opened.) I picture this vast open meadow look that Mackenzie seemingly loved, surrounded by all of the native--impressive in my mind at least.

Tom, Since you have been playing Pasatiempo since 1978, you really haven't made an effort to tell us how 25 years of tree growth have further encumbered the course. Tell us of the changes Gary Linn of RTJ and the changes Peter Thomson of TWP  had gotten away from the original MacKenzie intent, and how Tom Doak/Jim Urbina's work has tried to get it back. (You quite obviously know something about the course because you commented on how well Jim and Tom's work has come out in relation to the original.) Matter of fact, make that your In My Opinion piece. I would truely like to read about it because it might be something valuable for you to offer.

[THuckaby2]

Tommy:

No anger here, this is all great stuff!  

Just do remember that when I speak of trees, I'm talking about #10 and #10 alone.  On that hole and that hole only, I believe the trees add a tension to the tee shot that makes the hole great.  Take such away and the tension is gone and a great hole becomes a good hole.  That's it, plain and simple.

So do not take this any farther than that... I said a couple times above, I'd be absolutely stoked if they cut down every other tree on the course besides the stand lining 10 and 17.

To that end, to me Pasa has sadly always been all about trees, that's just my memory of it from my first play in 1978 until my last play, with a great group of guys a few months ago.  Oh, I know the pics and damn I've said many times I wished I could have played it like it was in the 30s... and maybe my memory is foggy, but I don't remember ever playing it any condition other than damn heavily forested.  In fact, if anything conditions today are the LEAST forested I can ever remember... they've thinned considerably the trees between 1 and 9, for example, which is great.

As for an In My Opinion piece, please.  I am talking out my ass and I know it... This is all just based on my impressions PLAYING the course over many years.  I have not studied it, nor do I intend to... I have no idea who did changes and when, nor do I care... I do know that the course is the least forested it's ever been and the bunker work on 10 damn nearly perfectly matches the pictures from the 30s, and that's why I say the Renaissance group has done great work.  My knowledge ends there, however.  I just play the game.

Bottom line is this:  I consider myself a great MacKenziephile, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge today's reality and see how some golf holes have to be and work best today... Such is the case re #10.  I really believe that MacK would hate the hole as it is today, and is rolling in his grave at the trees and what's become of it (though he must be pleased with the green-side bunkers!).  BUT, as I say repeatedly above, the tee ain't going back in the parking lot, so we deal with what we have.  And that being the case, although again it is contrary to MacK's general principles, this hole and this hole only works better with the trees.

Just be very careful putting this line of thinking on me anywhere beyond this one golf hole.  That is surely not what I intend.

TH

ps - you know what would make all of us happy?  Cut down the trees on the right and put in some deep, penal bunkers ranging from 230-270 off the tee, where the tree line is today.  Whaddya think?

[ForkaB]

Tom H

Hang in there, bro.  You are right and Tommy N is wrong.  The current #10 is a better golf hole than the 1930's version, of which we see only a fleeting glimpse in Tommy's picture, for all the reasons you have said above.  Also, and as I have said before, esthetic as the "restored" left hand bunker complex may be, it is largely irrelevant to the play of the hole.  Faux 70-80 year old eye candy.  AS one who first played Pasa in 1976, I can confirm your memory that it was just as tree infested then as it is now (wiht some recent exceptions).  Overall a really good course that, as Tommy implies, might be a great course if all the trees were chain-sawed and play were limited to 30 people per day.

Ain't gonna happen, alas.......

[THuckaby2]

That "alas" is what makes this whole discussion so moot anyway, isn't it?  It's all well and good to talk about this in theory, but that's all it is.  They aren't soon gonna be deforesting Pasa, regardless of what anyone says.

Re the bunkers on 10, well... we have discussed such before.  You make a good point that given the realities of play today, they are eye candy... but all my talk about the tee shot is all pretty irrelevant also when we have guys like Jeff F. who consider it a routine shot to bomb it over the left tree!

So for average players, well... the left greenside bunkers are always gonna be an issue, I think... and to that end, it's just really cool to me that they so perfectly replicated what was there in the 30s.  The current status v. the old pics is really stunning.  However they effect play, that in and of itself is just to me very cool.

TH

[DMoriarty]

Also, and as I have said before, esthetic as the "restored" left hand bunker complex may be, it is largely irrelevant to the play of the hole.  Faux 70-80 year old eye candy.

That was my impression when I saw the bunker work on 10 earlier this spring, but this thread got me thinking about it again.  I propose that the bunkers were neither "irrelevant" nor "eye candy" 70 or 80 yrs ago.  Take a look at the photo of the approach above.  The slope in front of the green runs directly and steeply down toward this row of bunkers.  A long running shot from the far right would appear to have a very good chance of banking left off this slope and landing squarely in any one of these bunkers.   As even Tom agrees, the shot coming in from the far right would likely be a runner--  this puts these bunkers very much in play.  

So if they have now become "eye candy" it is the  of the trees, not the architect.  

[THuckaby2]

"The slope in front of the green runs directly and steeply down toward this row of bunkers."

Not really, Dave.  It's not nearly as sharp of a slope toward the bunker as you seem to think from your memory and from looking at that pic.  Anything hit to the right or from the right will kick back left, yes, but most times will stay out of the bunkers unless one hits a hard hook or gets really unlucky.  In fact that mound you see on the right tends to kick shots RIGHT quite often, all you have to do is hit on the right side of it.

Remember also that Pasa RARELY plays firm and fast and so lots of balls just stick and hold there also, especially outside of mid-summer play.

TH

[DMoriarty]

Another thought.  

The thing that has amazes me most about the MacKenzie courses I have seen is his brilliant use of slope to exaggerate the difference between perfectly placed shots and "close but not perfect" shots.  Before the trees, his fantastic use of slope may have come into play on the drive (long well placed shot not too far right kicks forward and left, thus shortening the hole, while shot hit too far right continues right creating the dilemna for the second shot described above) as well as the approach (see above.)

[DMoriarty]

Not really, Dave.  It's not nearly as sharp of a slope toward the bunker as you seem to think from your memory and from looking at that pic.  Anything hit to the right or from the right will kick back left, yes, but most times will stay out of the bunkers unless one hits a hard hook or gets really unlucky.  In fact that mound you see on the right tends to kick shots RIGHT quite often, all you have to do is hit on the right side of it.

Tom it really sounds to me like you are describing the bounce of the ball from the existing line of play.  I am talking about the bounce from the far right where instead of hitting into a bank which slopes back toward the golfer and left, one would be hitting more across a bank that runs away from the golfer.  Plus one would be perched above the whole complex (on your flat lie.) The latter angle would exagerate the bounce, wouldnt it?

[THuckaby2]

Dave, you continue to have this slightly "off".  Notice how the contours going from the right toward the bunker are irregular?  And notice how it slopes slightly UP toward the bunker when you get right next to it?

All this causes more whimsy than you seem to think... You truly never know how the ball is gonna kick - it's not the guaranteed, kick left into the bunker unless one hits it perfectly that you seem to state.  If anything, great shots can NOT be rewarded, as they stay right, kick right, go straight through, based on the whim of the golf gods and exactly what square inch of those contours your ball alights on.

The same thing occurs on #2... it looks like the whole world breaks left, but alas the contouring short of that green holds the same degree of whimsy.

I used to hate this, in my old competitive golfer, want to be rewarded for my good shots life.  Then a cool electrician taught me a lot about whimsy, and now I love it, both on #2 and #10.

In any case hell yes MacKenzie is a genius - but not for separating out the good from the not good shots, but for reintroducing in America the whimsy that is so prevalent on the links of the UK!

TH

[THuckaby2]

Dave - re your last question, it's such a moot point to argue that it really seems silly to me.  You're just plain never going to have that shot, they are not going to cut down those trees.  But continuing on the theoretical, look at the contours more closely next time you're there.  I really believe that even coming in from the current 17 fairway, you still have the whimsical chance that anything could happen... hit the wrong side of one of the humps and hell yes you can stay right, go even farther right.

TH

[DMoriarty]

Tom,  

Your last post confuses me.  This whole thread we have been talking about how the hole would play without the trees, havent we?   So the whole thread is moot because they arent going to cut down the trees.  Yet here we are.

I don't deny that a shot from the far right hit just I tiny bit right would kick right.  In fact that is part of what I was referring to when I referred to the havoc this nob would create from the right.  Having your ball end up right and above the hole (or in the back bunkers) is probably worse than having your ball hit the left side of the hump and ending up in the short left bunkers.   So tell me again how this is an easy approach to run in from the far right?  

I am sure there is subtle movement around those bunkers, but we are talking about a running shot hit from far way across a side hill with the low point of the the entire area being those bunkers or a foot or two right of them.  If there is one thing I have learned playing Rustic when it is firm and fast is that a rolling ball will end up at the lowest elevation if there is even a little slope to help direct it.  There is much  more than a little slope here.

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

I'm just getting weary discussing a hypothetical situation that's never going to happen, that's all.  That's just me.

In any case, notice again how the ground slopes slightly UP right when you get to the bunkers... and remember that Pasa does NOT play firm and fast, hardly ever... So heck yeah, golf balls do generally settle in the low, but in this case, a very viable low is actually about 5 yards to the right of the bunker closest to the green, not in the bunker itself.  Sure more balls hit short and left, coming from that extreme right angle, will find their way into the bunker... but a lot of balls won't, some will stop short, some will kick right, some will go through the green... My sole and only point is that it's not nearly as cut and dried as you SEEMINGLY make it out to be.  Maybe I am reading you wrong.

In any case, I am truly not trying to be a smartass, but I completely forget why this matters... I think it's because I said an angle from the right is still going to be better than an angle from the left.  I continue to believe that, only because from the left one has to carry the bunkers, damn hard for such a long shot, whereas however the roll goes from the right, it's still much more possible to find the green.  If I have this right, no need to re-answer.  I just want to make sure I know why we are even still talking about this!  

TH

[DMoriarty]

Dave:

I'm just getting weary discussing a hypothetical situation that's never going to happen, that's all.  That's just me.

In any case, notice again how the ground slopes slightly UP right when you get to the bunkers... and remember that Pasa does NOT play firm and fast, hardly ever... So heck yeah, golf balls do generally settle in the low, but in this case, a very viable low is actually about 5 yards to the right of the bunker closest to the green, not in the bunker itself.  Sure more balls hit short and left, coming from that extreme right angle, will find their way into the bunker... but a lot of balls won't, some will stop short, some will kick right, some will go through the green... My sole and only point is that it's not nearly as cut and dried as you SEEMINGLY make it out to be.  Maybe I am reading you wrong.

In any case, I am truly not trying to be a smartass, but I completely forget why this matters... I think it's because I said an angle from the right is still going to be better than an angle from the left.  I continue to believe that, only because from the left one has to carry the bunkers, damn hard for such a long shot, whereas however the roll goes from the right, it's still much more possible to find the green.  If I have this right, no need to re-answer.  I just want to make sure I know why we are even still talking about this!

Tom, if you are tired of the thread then by all means don't let me keep you here.  

I am not sure either, why you are still talking about this.  I got back involved not to rehash our discussion, but in response to Rich's comment that the bunkers were 70 yr old eye candy.  I had thought the same thing until Tommy posted the pic showing that some of the play would be coming in from the far right.  Sure, not every shot from the far right will end up in one of the bunkers, but from the far right they are certainly in play, and not "eye candy."

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

As I said in response to Rich, I don't find the bunkers to be "eye candy" from ANY angle - those bunkers are deep and not a place one wants to be, and are always gonna be in play no matter what.

I still think you are a little off in your estimation of the contours though, that's why I responded to you.  I was trying to help and good lord do I not want to re-hash issues stated with such thorougness already!  The thing is, the picture really doesn't tell the whole story, or at least it doesn't if you're getting from it what you state here.

As for all the rest, ok, we've said all we can say!  Just note the similarities between the contours on 2 and 10 next time you're there - they really are not what they seem at first glance, in each case.

TH

[T_MacWood]

Tom Huckaby said:
"In any case hell yes MacKenzie is a genius - but not for separating out the good from the not good shots, but for reintroducing in America the whimsy that is so prevalent on the links of the UK!"

Please explain. Cypress Point, ANGC, Pasatiempo, Crystal Downs, Royal Melbourne, Pebble Beach and the Valley don't seperate good shots from not so good shots?

Since when did you become Mr.Pasatiempo? I was under the impression you didn't even like the golf course...preferring any number of CCFADs to it in NoCal.

[THuckaby2]

Tom M:

Obviously those courses in most places reward well-played shots.  I never said they didn't.  But I honestly do believe that this element of whimsy is also present at MacKenzie courses, at least the ones I have played, more than at other courses - and that to me shows his genius MORE than how my friend Dave described it.  That's all, no more, no less.  But if you want to call him a genius for other reasons, that's great by me, I'm not gonna argue.

Jeez, I guess it's my poor writing skills but people really do have a way of reading WAY more into my words than I ever intend... My fault, I'll try harder.

In any case, I have played Valley Club (many years ago) Pasatiempo, Cypress Point and Meadow Club, as well as some other lesser-known MacKenzie courses here in the SFBay Area, but I have not been to any of the others you mention, other than Pebble Beach, which I have a hard time attributing to MacKenzie.  You'd say that is a MacKenzie course?

As for Pasatiempo, I complain about it more than any man on the planet, but it's like giving crap to one's siblings.  That is, I can call my brother all the names in the book and list his deficiences with great proficiency, but god help the man who agrees with me.

Maybe that makes sense, maybe not.  I guess I should put it plainer:  I love Pasatiempo, always have, always will.  It is by far and away the best of the many courses I can call "home" near me.  I complain about it because it is so close and yet so far (that is, it costs so damn much to play I just can't do it as much as I'd like, not even close)... It's also so far today from what MacKenzie wanted (in my mind, due to the forestation) that that makes me complain also... Conditions, while greatly improved, are still too swamplike all too often... thus more complaints....

But all that being said, it is still a DAMN fine golf course, one that I would happily play every day.

That is, if I were independently wealthy.  

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Here we go!!!!!

Tom, You know Tom Mac is right. You have all of a sudden have become Mr. Pasatiempo--even though it costs too much.

Oh yes, I remember the days when Tom Huckaby would sit there and argue with me all day about there was little MacKenzie left there to study, and how the course wasn't worth the money to play, etc. etc. etc.

Yes Tom opinions do change. You are living proof of that my friend! But I think that is a good thing. I really do. Now you just have to find a way to reflect it all in your Golf Digest rankings.

[THuckaby2]

Tommy:

As I said above, a certain electrician showed me the light.

God I love that pun.  

But I also so hate being wrong (ask my wife) that dammit, I'm still gonna reserve the right to continue to complain about the course I love/hate.

I'm still gonna bitch about the cost, until such day that such things don't matter, which I can't see ever happening in my reality.  I am still pissed about the mid-80s, when they got ranked for the first time and immediately the fees doubled.  But oh yes, a nice electrician/golf nut also explained to me how however much it costs, it still is nice of the members to allow yokels like me to play period.  That is very logical, very rational, very correct....

But still doesn't make me any less pissed!

The cool thing is where you REALLY enlightened me was about #2.  Remember how I bitched and moaned about the entry there way back when, calling it unfair, stupid, etc?  Now I do love it and I swear, #2 is my favorite hole on the golf course.

Learning is a great thing.  Even if it does involved swallowing some pride and humble pie.  

TH

[T_MacWood]

Tom H.
Perhaps you turned over a new leaf, but you were for the longest time the most outspoken critic of the golf course that I know of...and its wasn't isolated to the cost and conditioning....you didn't see it as great golf course preferring handful of high scale modern layouts. I don't recall  you saying anything positive about the golf course.

Poor writing skills? Reading too much into your words?

Your words are very clear and plain to me, "MacKenzie is a genius - but not for separating out the good from the not good shots". How do you read anything other than what you wrote?

Whimsy? I'm sure the Good Doctor will be thrilled to know his strength is whimsy over requiring good shot making and strategic thought.

I would guess there are a few Masters, US Open and Australian Open champions who might disagree with that assessment.

[THuckaby2]

Tom M:

Well, I'm sure you got your impression of me somehow.  All I can say is that I have always loved the golf course, always felt it deserved every ranking it got, and all my complaints were due to self-interest and it being so near and dear to me, as I have tried to say above.  As for me preferring modern high-scale layouts, good lord you couldn't be more wrong.  But you got this impression somehow.... Rest assured though it is incorrect.  Pasa is among the course I hold in the highest regard and always has been.  Again, relate it to families - you only bitch at those you love.  Or at least I do.

I'll agree I have always been among the most OUTSPOKEN about the golf course, but I'll disagree with me being the most outspoken CRITIC.  I just do love to talk about the course as there is so much to say... In any case, yes, I have often complained about certain aspects.  But in summary I have always felt it is a great course, and as I say my complaints were always really geared toward the superficial (ie cost, conditions, etc.), with the exception of my misguided complaints about the entry to #2, and in that, I believe I have learned.

But you believe what you wish... I can't change that.  Tommy ought to be able to attest to all this, he and I have been going at this for a decade now.  Maybe even he couldn't sort out my love for the course amongst the complaints, and if so, well, it's understandable because the superficial issues were often all we discussed.

I guess I just request you take my word for this.

As for my thoughts re MacKenzie, again, this is just one reason for his genius, not the ONLY one.  Please don't read any more into it than that.  I've tried to explain this, failed twice now, here's hoping the third time is a charm.

Please re-phrase my statement to read:

MacKenzie is a genius, for, AMONG OTHER THINGS, re-introducing whimsy into SOME OF HIS COURSES.

Does that meet your muster?

My apologies for the incomplete statement before.  

TH

[T_MacWood]

If I could find my muster I might be able to tell you if your back track met it.

[Dan Kelly]

I hate to interrupt this lovefest, but ...

For the benefit of those of us who have played Pasatiempo since ... NEVER: Does anyone have a current-day picture of the tee shot at 10?

[THuckaby2]

Tom M.

Well, that is what I always meant.  That's what I mean by poor writing skills.  I never meant for this to be exclusive.

Dan K.:

EDIT - I glossed over what you want - you want a pic of the tee shot as it exists today.  OK, not sure if anyone has posted that.  If anyone has it though it would be Carlyle Rood.

Take Tommy's pic, add more brush/bushes/small trees in the canyon, add a line of huge trees on the right side.  That's how it is today, no need to see a pic!
TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dan,
One  thing that isn't being mentioned. The tee shot is up closer and lower then in the image. I'll dig an image of the 10th tee modern up somewhere. Since the last time I have seen it, Tom & Jim have worked on the ravenous cavernous features you see in the front. For me the thrill of playing he hole is tocarry that hazard and try to get it on top of the hill. Of the 12 times I have played Pasatiempo, I have managed it once, with all of the other tries falling short or slicing long, but thankfully, never in. I'm pretty pumped when I'm at this course, I love it that much.