[Patrick_Mucci]

Can a set of green complexes be considered among the best when they are on a significant hillside like those at Pasatiempo?

Absolutely.

That makes them all the better.

# 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 aren't on a significant hillside

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Q1 -I really like the green complexes at Pasa, but No

Q2 -Augusta National

More than 20 % of the 18 original greens NLE, so how can you select ANGC, another MacKenzie course ?

Although not everybody agrees with all the changes here over the years, it remains one of the most strategically defended set of golf greens on any course that I have seen. It is the anthesis of the symmetrically defended greens which are found in great majority on almost all golf courses, including quite a few golden age or more recent so called minimalist designs.

Come to think of it Asymmetric defending of greens may be one of the most undervalued and underestimated aspects of succesful golf course design....

There is NOTHING symmetrical about Pasatiempo's greens.

[Tim_Weiman]

the best green complexes in golf ?

Which green complexes do you think are better ?

Pat,

If this is what we get when you make it out to Santa Cruz, I hope you never make it to Melbourne.  The Discussion Bard won't be able to keep up with the number of thread you will want to start.  

As for Pasa's greens, whilst the are some of my favorites, they are a little too extreme to be the best, IMO, both in their location and contour.
The flatter locations and more gently tilting contours and rolls at Royal Melbourne are superior IMO. 

David,

You can't be a golf architecture junkie and wish that a fellow junkie never makes it to Melbourne!

[Patrick_Mucci]

the best green complexes in golf ?

Which green complexes do you think are better ?

Pat,

If this is what we get when you make it out to Santa Cruz, I hope you never make it to Melbourne.  
The Discussion Bard won't be able to keep up with the number of thread you will want to start.  

As for Pasa's greens, whilst the are some of my favorites, they are a little too extreme to be the best, IMO, both in their location and contour.

You must be kidding.
Their "location"  Where would you have put them ?
Their "contour", which greens do you find objectionable or overly contoured.

What's your opinion of the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 11th and 15th greens at NGLA ?

What's your opinion of the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 9th, 13th, 16th greens at ANGC ?

The flatter locations and more gently tilting contours and rolls at Royal Melbourne are superior IMO. 

Can you get flatter locations than # 1, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, at Pasatiempo ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Thanks, Stephen.  Good to learn that as my observation was a couple months ago.  Did the course offer you a credit while apologizing for the brown and dry fairways?   I bet many on here would pay a bonus for those conditions.

No, they wouldn't.
Brown is just a color and not an absolute indicator of the conditions of the turf.

Water restrictions have had a negative effect on playing  conditions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

On a really good, sandy property, do people think most greenside bunker shots are among the least engaging recoveries available?  Most people are just trying to get out of sand so cool ground movement is for the most part a waste.  Its a bit of a cliche, but it often makes sense that flat ground play is often dictated by bunkers.  It should also make sense that cool ground movement be allowed to dictate play.

Sean,

Have you played Pasatiempo ?

The use, and routing incorporating the barrancas is brilliant. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

On a really good, sandy property, do people think most greenside bunker shots are among the least engaging recoveries available?  Most people are just trying to get out of sand so cool ground movement is for the most part a waste.  Its a bit of a cliche, but it often makes sense that flat ground play is often dictated by bunkers.  It should also make sense that cool ground movement be allowed to dictate play.  

Ciao

Completely agree.

Flatter courses do need more bunkering usually. We can debate the relative merits of the number and placement but a large part of the reason that many of The Open rota courses have a considerable number of bunkers is that they are relatively flat (money and difficulty being the other reasons).

Courses with lots of ground movement can get by with a lot less bunkers - there are umpteen examples of this.

And yes - the very best green complexes more often than not have a scarcity of green side bunkers, relying on one or two and some interesting ground movement on the surrounds.

Ally,

Have you played Pasatiempo ?
Cypress Point ?

I think you'd change your mind and the above post after a round on those two courses.

[Mark Pearce]

On a really good, sandy property, do people think most greenside bunker shots are among the least engaging recoveries available?  Most people are just trying to get out of sand so cool ground movement is for the most part a waste.  Its a bit of a cliche, but it often makes sense that flat ground play is often dictated by bunkers.  It should also make sense that cool ground movement be allowed to dictate play.  

Ciao

Completely agree.

Flatter courses do need more bunkering usually. We can debate the relative merits of the number and placement but a large part of the reason that many of The Open rota courses have a considerable number of bunkers is that they are relatively flat (money and difficulty being the other reasons).

Courses with lots of ground movement can get by with a lot less bunkers - there are umpteen examples of this.

And yes - the very best green complexes more often than not have a scarcity of green side bunkers, relying on one or two and some interesting ground movement on the surrounds.

Ally,

Have you played Pasatiempo ?
Cypress Point ?

I think you'd change your mind and the above post after a round on those two courses.

Patrick,
Have you played Pasatiempo The Old Course?
Cypress PointRoyal Dornoch ?

I think you'd change your mind and the above post after a round on those two courses.

Oh, and I have played (and loved) both Pasatiempo and Cypress Point but I still agree with Ally.

[Mark_Fine]

No!  Some are amazing but some are way over the top for modern green speeds!  The average golfer (when the greens are rolling at anything above 11) probably three four or five putts a third or more of the greens.  Take the first par three hole at Pasa as just one example.  It makes the 5th at Pine Valley seem easy 

[Chris DeToro]

I think you could say the same thing for a lot of slopey greens.  Your average guy is going to three and four putt quite often if the speeds are up near 11, not just at Pasatiempo

[Mark_Fine]

Chris,
The difference is in the amount of internal contour in the Pasa greens.  You can be a scratch golfer and have a three foot putt there and realize if you miss, you have 40 feet coming back (if not a chip shot).  Pin positions are also severely limited on quite a few of the Pasa greens.  If they slowed up the greens, they could add many great hole locations that are lost otherwise.

Please don't get me wrong, Pasa has some awesome greens, but as a collection, they are not the best out there.
Mark

[Chris DeToro]

I agree that they are great greens, but also agree that there are other great greens as well.  A lot of the older courses, in particular, become very difficult to putt at such high speeds.  For instance, I played Moraine CC during a state am qualifier and watched many very good players four putt from close range. 

[Jim Nugent]

Chris,
The difference is in the amount of internal contour in the Pasa greens.  You can be a scratch golfer and have a three foot putt there and realize if you miss, you have 40 feet coming back (if not a chip shot).

Someone on GCA (can't remember who) said that when he was on the 3rd tier of the 16th green, and the pin was on the 2nd, he intentionally putted off the green alongside the 2nd tier, hoping he could chip close enough from there and end up with the equivalent of a 3-putt.  

[Rich Goodale]

Pasatiempo's green complexes (en masse) are amongst the top 100 in the world, but closer to the back end of any such ranking.  Any idiot could build a challenging green on a ridiculous back to front slope (e.g. 11, 16, 18 et. al.).  The truly great green complexes in the world of golf have more subtlety than WOW!  Not much subtlety at Pasa (or NGLA, or Cypress or Royal Melbourne...to name a few poster children beloved by this site).

[Bill_McBride]

Pasatiempo's green complexes (en masse) are amongst the top 100 in the world, but closer to the back end of any such ranking.  Any idiot could build a challenging green on a ridiculous back to front slope (e.g. 11, 16, 18 et. al.).  The truly great green complexes in the world of golf have more subtlety than WOW!  Not much subtlety at Pasa (or NGLA, or Cypress or Royal Melbourne...to name a few poster children beloved by this site).

You forgot the 8th, where Neal Meagher measured the front half of the green at 8%!   And that's not a hill top green.  5 is another slippery green. 

[David_Elvins]

Their "location"  Where would you have put them ?
Their "contour", which greens do you find objectionable or overly contoured.
Can you get flatter locations than # 1, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, at Pasatiempo ?[/color]

Objectionable?  come on Pat, I have already stated that Pasa is one of my favorite courses.  Like Rich, I think the very very best greens have a bit more subtlety that the ones at Pasa. 

I think part of the lack of subtlety can be attributed to the fact the site is not sandy (making fine detail work harder), and part attributed to some of the big slopes the greens are located on.  IMO when a green is significantly flatter than the ground around it, recovery shots too often become about lofting the ball softly onto the flatter green surface.  When greens are benched into significant slopes, bunkers are often used to hide the transition leading to what Tom Doak describes as over-bunkering and a lack of short game variety.

It's still a great course, I just don't think the greens are the BEST I have seen. 

[Jamey Bryan]

I don't understand the objections voiced regarding Pasa's greens being "over the top".  I may be in a small minority, but I love greens which make three (or more) putts from three or four feet very possible if/when the second putt is from an awkward position (above or above/sideways from the hole).  I love even more greens which punish out of position approaches with the fear of putting off the green.

What's wrong with these possibilities, which only arise with fairly severe greens with substantial overall slope (as opposed to internal contour)?  "Slopey" greens present three challenges:

1.  The shot preceding the approach needs to be in the correct position so to utilize the slopes on the approach.  Out of position approaches become exceedingly difficult, especially on firm greens.

2.  Approaches are demanding in that precision is required on accuracy, trajectory, and spin in order to get close to the hole.

3.  Putting is then the remaining challenge, with only perfect approaches (below the hole) being simple.

In addition to the above, recovery from around the green is possible but challenging with these greens.

I just don't understand the objections to these types of greens......   even a Senior can master the skills required, but elite players routinely cry that they're not "fair."

Jamey

[Mark_Fine]

Jamey,
Good comments and I agree with some but not all of your points.  I think what a few of us are saying is that Pasa's greens are very good but best in the world - give me a break!!

[Ryan Coles]

I don't understand the objections voiced regarding Pasa's greens being "over the top".  I may be in a small minority, but I love greens which make three (or more) putts from three or four feet very possible if/when the second putt is from an awkward position (above or above/sideways from the hole).  I love even more greens which punish out of position approaches with the fear of putting off the green.

What's wrong with these possibilities, which only arise with fairly severe greens with substantial overall slope (as opposed to internal contour)?  "Slopey" greens present three challenges:

1.  The shot preceding the approach needs to be in the correct position so to utilize the slopes on the approach.  Out of position approaches become exceedingly difficult, especially on firm greens.

2.  Approaches are demanding in that precision is required on accuracy, trajectory, and spin in order to get close to the hole.

3.  Putting is then the remaining challenge, with only perfect approaches (below the hole) being simple.

In addition to the above, recovery from around the green is possible but challenging with these greens.

I just don't understand the objections to these types of greens......   even a Senior can master the skills required, but elite players routinely cry that they're not "fair."

Jamey

Jamey

Is the game not difficult and time consuming enough without 3 and 4 putting from 3 feet by design?

Who are these seniors who can: " demonstrate accuracy, trajectory, and spin in order to get close to the hole."??

So from 160 after a perfectly placed drive old Bill hits it 3 feet from the cup and and is in danger of 4 putting?

You play and desire a game of which I am not familiar. All these demands of "perfection" being placed upon the beleaguered golfer, you're forgetting he can't hit his own hat and "punishing" him for for a margin of error so small is not good for him or the game.

[Jamey Bryan]

Guys, I guess I’m biased in that I’ve played the majority of my golf for the past 20 years at Camden CC, an old Walter Travis/Donald Ross design which has extremely demanding greens of the type I described.  (Yes, I’m a homer…..)  And, in another thread, John Shimp asked (saying he wasn’t kidding) if Camden was not the hardest course under 6500 yards in the world (this was after his son shot 67 in the second round of a Carolinas Golf Assn. junior tournament, bogeying both 17 and 18).

As to seniors….   Camden has a member who, at 88 or so, shoots his age between half and 1/3 of the times he tees it up.  He recognizes that when he’s above the hole, he needs to be VERY careful, even lagging to prevent 3-4 putts.  As to the elite seniors, I watched Paul Simpson (hardly the typical player) in the Carolinas Senior last year shoot 69, 69, 81!  Paul, in his last round, really didn’t hit many horrible shots, but was just far enough off that he repeatedly left himself in position that par or birdie required something exceptional and he failed to execute.  I would argue, though, that the first two rounds clearly show that such a course is both “fair” and can be scored on with good, INTELLIGENT play.  The greens, as I said before, are “green light” only when one is in the correct position for the approach, then when the approach is in the correct position on the green.

I just really like that severe greens introduce STRATEGY as well as execution to the game, to a degree that typical modern greens do not.  Interesting pins can even bring strategy into par three holes….. something almost never seen other than Sunday at Augusta.

Jamey

[Patrick_Mucci]

By an incredible coincidence, tonight, after dinner at Pine Valley, I ran into the Head Pro and Green Chairman at Pasatiempo.

We had a lengthy discussion about Pasatiempo.

More to follow tomorrow.

P.S.  If anyone is 4 putting fro 3 feet at Pasatiempo they should be taking up tennis, bowling or quoits.

[Ryan Coles]

Guys, I guess I’m biased in that I’ve played the majority of my golf for the past 20 years at Camden CC, an old Walter Travis/Donald Ross design which has extremely demanding greens of the type I described.  (Yes, I’m a homer…..)  And, in another thread, John Shimp asked (saying he wasn’t kidding) if Camden was not the hardest course under 6500 yards in the world (this was after his son shot 67 in the second round of a Carolinas Golf Assn. junior tournament, bogeying both 17 and 18).

As to seniors….   Camden has a member who, at 88 or so, shoots his age between half and 1/3 of the times he tees it up.  He recognizes that when he’s above the hole, he needs to be VERY careful, even lagging to prevent 3-4 putts.  As to the elite seniors, I watched Paul Simpson (hardly the typical player) in the Carolinas Senior last year shoot 69, 69, 81!  Paul, in his last round, really didn’t hit many horrible shots, but was just far enough off that he repeatedly left himself in position that par or birdie required something exceptional and he failed to execute.  I would argue, though, that the first two rounds clearly show that such a course is both “fair” and can be scored on with good, INTELLIGENT play.  The greens, as I said before, are “green light” only when one is in the correct position for the approach, then when the approach is in the correct position on the green.

I just really like that severe greens introduce STRATEGY as well as execution to the game, to a degree that typical modern greens do not.  Interesting pins can even bring strategy into par three holes….. something almost never seen other than Sunday at Augusta.

Jamey

Typical modern greens are much more severe.

Which par 3's at Augusta? On the front 9?

12 appears dead flat.

16 if the pin is left aim for the middle and the slope will being it down. If the pin is right, don't miss it right. Not much to think about there really.

As for Paul Simpson, if he shot 12 shots worse without playing all that differently or badly, the margin for error is too narrow so that it becomes a lottery. Either that or you equate hard with good.

It just doesn't sit with me that the real possibility of regularly 3 or 4 putting from 3 feet, or putting off the green is a good thing for anyone. Lousy design or inappropriate green speeds, more like it.

Most golfers miss 2/3 of fairways and 2/3 of greens. You want to "punish" the guy who hits the fairway, hits the green and putts to within 3 feet of the hole with the "real possibility" of 3 (or worse) putting from there? You've cut the pin in a stupid place or the greens are too fast. Putting is already a third of the game for most, without this nonsense.

This is not intelligent or strategic. This is taking a game that was supposed to be played through the variances of weather etc and enforcing the requirement of perfection. It's just not necessary. The game is difficult enough for virtually everyone already.

Hitting the correct portion of greens and fairways is all romanticised tripe for all but the elite. Most don't hit any part of the green or any part of the fairway with any regularity.

[Brent Carlson]

If you like Pasa's greens you need to play University of Michigan.  This MacKenzie / Maxwell has the most similar greens I've seen to Pasa.

[Bill_McBride]

Guys, I guess I’m biased in that I’ve played the majority of my golf for the past 20 years at Camden CC, an old Walter Travis/Donald Ross design which has extremely demanding greens of the type I described.  (Yes, I’m a homer…..)  And, in another thread, John Shimp asked (saying he wasn’t kidding) if Camden was not the hardest course under 6500 yards in the world (this was after his son shot 67 in the second round of a Carolinas Golf Assn. junior tournament, bogeying both 17 and 18).

As to seniors….   Camden has a member who, at 88 or so, shoots his age between half and 1/3 of the times he tees it up.  He recognizes that when he’s above the hole, he needs to be VERY careful, even lagging to prevent 3-4 putts.  As to the elite seniors, I watched Paul Simpson (hardly the typical player) in the Carolinas Senior last year shoot 69, 69, 81!  Paul, in his last round, really didn’t hit many horrible shots, but was just far enough off that he repeatedly left himself in position that par or birdie required something exceptional and he failed to execute.  I would argue, though, that the first two rounds clearly show that such a course is both “fair” and can be scored on with good, INTELLIGENT play.  The greens, as I said before, are “green light” only when one is in the correct position for the approach, then when the approach is in the correct position on the green.

I just really like that severe greens introduce STRATEGY as well as execution to the game, to a degree that typical modern greens do not.  Interesting pins can even bring strategy into par three holes….. something almost never seen other than Sunday at Augusta.

Jamey

Typical modern greens are much more severe.

Which par 3's at Augusta? On the front 9?

12 appears dead flat.

16 if the pin is left aim for the middle and the slope will being it down. If the pin is right, don't miss it right. Not much to think about there really.

As for Paul Simpson, if he shot 12 shots worse without playing all that differently or badly, the margin for error is too narrow so that it becomes a lottery. Either that or you equate hard with good.

It just doesn't sit with me that the real possibility of regularly 3 or 4 putting from 3 feet, or putting off the green is a good thing for anyone. Lousy design or inappropriate green speeds, more like it.

Most golfers miss 2/3 of fairways and 2/3 of greens. You want to "punish" the guy who hits the fairway, hits the green and putts to within 3 feet of the hole with the "real possibility" of 3 (or worse) putting from there? You've cut the pin in a stupid place or the greens are too fast. Putting is already a third of the game for most, without this nonsense.

This is not intelligent or strategic. This is taking a game that was supposed to be played through the variances of weather etc and enforcing the requirement of perfection. It's just not necessary. The game is difficult enough for virtually everyone already.

Hitting the correct portion of greens and fairways is all romanticised tripe for all but the elite. Most don't hit any part of the green or any part of the fairway with any regularity.

What you decry is really all about playing greens designed for 7-8 stimps at modern speeds of 11-12.  It's not a function of poor design. 

[Cristian]

Q1 -I really like the green complexes at Pasa, but No

Q2 -Augusta National

More than 20 % of the 18 original greens NLE, so how can you select ANGC, another MacKenzie course ?

Although not everybody agrees with all the changes here over the years, it remains one of the most strategically defended set of golf greens on any course that I have seen. It is the anthesis of the symmetrically defended greens which are found in great majority on almost all golf courses, including quite a few golden age or more recent so called minimalist designs.

Come to think of it Asymmetric defending of greens may be one of the most undervalued and underestimated aspects of succesful golf course design....

There is NOTHING symmetrical about Pasatiempo's greens.

First of all let me state that I like Pasatiempo (yes I played it), including the greens. I also agree that the course and its greensite bunkering mostly does not look symmetrical, as each bunker has its own shape and character, perhaps one of the biggest assets of the course. However the course does play rather symmetrical; bunkers left and right and/or front and back on all but 2 or 3 holes. This means that a mid handicapper (say 10-16) with average iron and bunker skills will be best off, aiming for the middle of the green on almost every hole regardless of pin position. I admire courses which are challenging for the better player but still avoid this and find that actually very few courses come close to those criteria. ANGC is the best example of this that I have seen. That is my taste and that is why I feel ANGC has the best set of greens (complexes) I have seen.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()