Mac changes to Pasatiempo in 1930

[Neil_Crafter]

I recently found the following article that mentions changes that Mackenzie was making to Pasatiempo in the middle of 1930. It is from the LA Times of 20 July 1930.



According to Bob Beck, Pasatiempo's historian, Bob Mucks was Marion Hollins' GM. Bob Beck knew of the move of the 9th green in 1930, but was unaware of the changes to the 11th green. Some notes from Bob:

Robert Mucks was Hollins' GM.  Made first hole in one at Pasatiempo (#15).  Had not seen this article before; but yes. I was aware of the changes to #9.  In Ocober 1930, Hollins brought the U.S. Ladies National Team to the U.S. and a series of photographs were taken by Julian P. Graham.  One showed the new 9th green (present green) and the remnants of the original 9th green to the right.  A multi-tiered green like #16.  Also knew he was moving the 17th green to its present position from what is now the 18th Championship tee (opened in 1931 according to an article about our pro, Adrian Wilson,  making a new course record because of the change.   Did not know that MacKenzie  was working on #11.  Original it was a five par; but was changed to a four par in 1930 reducing par to 73.   Apparently he made some changes to #11 green; but no before and after photos like #9.

Presumably the shortening of the 11th to a par 4 coincided with this work to the green. I wonder if the hole was shortened at the tee end, or whether there was a new green built forward of the old green to make the par reduction. Hard to know exactly what the article means when it says "revamping". Interested in any thoughts, especially those of Tom D.

cheers Neil

[Tom_Doak]

Neil:

I have seen the 11th at Pasatiempo listed as a par five on an old scorecard I think, but I don't know how it would have been possible for the green to have been much further back than today; it would have had to be down in the ravine (impossible) or further back up the hill (highly unlikely as the green is already 90 feet above the tee, and it gets steeper behind the green).

Perhaps there was a place for a tee further back somewhere?  Or perhaps they just rebuilt the 11th green because the original version was too steep ...

[Ronald Montesano]

Perhaps the original notice listed a numeral instead of a number, and the 11th and 17th were confuse?

[Dan King]

Many years ago we had a discussion about the 11th hole and how it could have originally been a par 5. When Bobby Jones played the course on the opening round he played up the 12th hole fairway to reach the green in two. This would not be possible today. There was some question if the trees from the barranca had grown that much now making it impossible. However, I remember some pics from that era were the trees in the barranca were just as high then as today.

The only real explanation I could come up was the 11th tee would have been behind the 10th green, between the 10th and 16th green. This means the Jones route would have required hitting over the 12th green. It would make sense the tee would be moved up and turn the 11th hole into a par 4 to avoid hitting over the 12th green.

However, based on the article Neil found, with the change to the green, perhaps it was higher up on the hill, next to the current 12th tee. This would also make sense in Jones playing up the 12th fairway to get to a green closer to the current 12th tee. Hard to imagine MacKenzie was needed just to move the tee up so not to play to the left of the barranca.

It would be cool to have MacKenzie return to find the current spot for the 11th green after the course opened.

Cheers,
Dan King

On her days off, she [Marion Hollins] was searching the Monterey Bay area restlessly, looking for the perfect site where she could build the golf course and sports center of her dreams. She found it that day on her horesback ride to Carbonero Ridge, in the rolling foothills several miles north of Santa Cruz on a portion of the historic 1838 Mexican Land Grant, Rancho Carbonero.
 --From The Pasatiempo Story

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan - trees grow and trees so huge are not exactly easy to top off, so it's hard for me to believe that what's there now is the same height as what was there in 1930.  In any case, I don't think it's the trees in the barranca that prevent(ed) the play up 12 fairway.. its the trees closer to 11 tee, to the left of 12 green (as you play to it).  Those are small too... might not those have been added later, that is not been there when Jones played?  Take those away and even with large trees in the barranca, the play up 12 is very possible.  Of course this also assumes 11 tee was always where it is now.  Move it back as you say and yes the equation changes.

Of course all this intrigues me because I have stated many times in here my wish that they remove ALL the trees between 11 and 12, and thus make both holes better as the "other fairway" options open up for each.... but then again I live in a dream world not connected to the real, litigious one most populate.

 

Wow placing 11 green higher up... that seems odd to me... but maybe it was!  We need the historians to nail this down.  As much as I love Geoff's books, I do not expect that one to come true.

TH

[Dan King]

I misspoke, saying they were just as high. Judging from the photos I've seen, they looked to be too high for Jones to play up the 12th from where the tee is currently. It's not clear how much further back the tee would have had to been, but since it was clearly a three-shotter on opening day, between 10th and 16th green seems like a logical place for the tee.

I would have liked to seen Pasatiempo with much fewer trees. The 1st and ninth hole would have been very cool without trees and the range. Just because of a single death, we are stuck with those trees. Judging from the attitudes of most of my classmates, it doesn't seem like it will change anytime soon. They all seem to favor plaintiffs.

Cheers,
Dan King

It's a tan like mine. It tells you the player is spending a lot of time out on the fairway and the greens - and not in the trees.
 --Lee Trevino (on the sign of a good golfer)

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan:  BINGO.  The fault lies in your classmates.  Let's just make sure they stay as classmates and do not become colleagues, you hear?

But when have you last seen Pasa?  It's a lot less forested than it once was... hope does spring eternal....

[Neil_Crafter]

Thanks guys for the comments. It would be interesting to see the changes in the length of the 11th hole over time.

Tom, yes it is certainly possible that the 'revamping' of the green mentioned in the article meant a change in the contouring of the green in its existing spot, however, we know that the 9th green was moved and this was also under the 'revamped' category. So who really knows what they meant by it.

Ronald, you suggested that it might have been a simple error where 17 looked like 11 and then was written as eleven. I'm not so sure that is likely. Possible of course. The info from Bob Mucks may well have been given to the reporter over the phone in which case there should have been no confusion. As 11 was shortened around this time it's certainly coherent to have the 11th green being "revamped" - whatever that means!

I wonder if there are any clues in Mac's green plan for this hole? Is there anything in it that indicates its original siting? Well to start with I do not think the club has a full set of green plans, and there are a couple that are missing so I understand. When Mac was originally drawing these plans there was obviously some doubt as to which nine would be the back and which one the front, hence the green plans are labelled '1 or 10', and '2 or 11' etc. There is a green plan for '2 or 11' but interestingly one just labelled '11th'. They do however seem to be essentially the same green, just one of them was obviously drawn later than the other, as to which one I don't know. there are slight differences between the two plans, but not enough to suggest they are for different holes.

However, the one labelled 11th has an outline of a tee to the right of the green, which is the general location of the 3rd tee relative to the 2nd green. As the 12th tee is to the left of the 11th green, I can only conclude that both these plans are actually for the green of the 2nd.

So the upshot is I think that there is no green plan for the current 11th in Pasatiempo's keeping. So no light for this particular dilemma.

[David_Elvins]

Neil,

Mackenzie was never much for fronting bunkers, was he?  Although if he ever was going to build one, a par 5 would be presumably a good place.  Perhaps the alteration was primarily removing the front bunker when the hole was changed from a par 5 to a par 4?  The rest of the green looks very similar to what one sees in the field today.  

Whilst jumping to conclusions it is worth noting that it appears that the green sketch is orientated to reflect a '3rd shot' approach.  The second shot approach would be from further right and there is a real 'diagonal element' with the right bunker.

[Tim Liddy]

Interesting to me that the 1 foot grades on the green drawings could be an engineers 1 inch (1/10th of a foot) grade with today’s green speeds.

[Mark Bourgeois]

[Joel_Stewart]

Good find.  

The old 9th green I like, I'm not sure what the reason for moving it other than possibly the clubhouse?

[Mark Bourgeois]

What's interesting is the new green appeared to give golfers an incentive to play down 1 fairway.  

[Jordan Standefer]

Cool pictures, Mark.

Where does the original 9th green (that you point out) lay in relation to today's 1st tee?  It seems as though they might be really close.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Thanks, Jordan. I place 1 tee boxes starting roughly on the back third of the original 9 green and going back from there.

[Mike Benham]

Good find.  

The old 9th green I like, I'm not sure what the reason for moving it other than possibly the clubhouse?

Perhaps the addition of the driving range forced a slight shift of the #1 fairway/tee box.  I don't know when the range was added but I'm guessing it wasn't in the 1930s ...

[Jordan Standefer]

Thanks, Jordan. I place 1 tee boxes starting roughly on the back third of the original 9 green and going back from there.

That would certainly make for an interesting uphill approach.

Perhaps the addition of the driving range forced a slight shift of the #1 fairway/tee box.  I don't know when the range was added but I'm guessing it wasn't in the 1930s ...

Mike, you beat me to the same thought.

I know that the original #1 tee was located (roughly) where the practice chipping/bunker area is now.  Did the moving of the 1st tee coincide with the moving of the 9th green?  Or was that done at a different time?