[Sean_A]

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

Pat

Yes, I think fom pix the use of barrancas is the most appealing thing I see about Pasa.  I am not overly enamoured with severe sloping greens surrounded by sand though.  Regardless, I would love to play Pasa one day hopefully when the greens are running no more than 9ish 

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

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

Tim,

I have invited Pat down to Melbourne several times over the last 6 years. Maybe his discovery of this MacKenzie fellow will help sway him.  Personally, I reckon he is a moron if he never makes it down to Melbourne.

[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.

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.

Cristian,

What 10-16 handicap has the skill set to go pin hunting ?

Below, you cite ANGC.
Do you think a 10-16 handicap can go pin hunting at ANGC ?

What holes at ANGC don't have bunkers left and right and/or front and back ?

Why aren't your criticisms of Pasatiempo applied equally to ANGC ?

Have you played ANGC ?



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.

What's so special about # 1 ?

# 8 and 14

[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

Pat

Yes, I think fom pix the use of barrancas is the most appealing thing I see about Pasa. 

I am not overly enamoured with severe sloping greens surrounded by sand though. 

Then I take it that you're not a fan of Pine Valley

Regardless, I would love to play Pasa one day hopefully when the greens are running no more than 9ish 

You've let others and your lack of personal experience cloud your assessment.

I'd be anxious to hear your opinion after you've played the course.
I think you will change your mind

Ciao

[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.

Cristian,

What 10-16 handicap has the skill set to go pin hunting ?

Below, you cite ANGC.
Do you think a 10-16 handicap can go pin hunting at ANGC ?

What holes at ANGC don't have bunkers left and right and/or front and back ?

Why aren't your criticisms of Pasatiempo applied equally to ANGC ?

Have you played ANGC ?



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.

What's so special about # 1 ?

# 8 and 14

Patrick,

Thanks for your reply. I think this is an interesting discussion.

I did not say a 10-16 hcap can go pin hunting at ANGC, I just said that at symmetrically defended greens, a mid-handicapper will be aiming for the middle of the green on almost every hole. I think that a 10-16 handicapper at ANGC does not need to aim for the middle of the green on each hole, in fact he would be much better of not to do so.

At Augusta National (which I have walked but not played) following holes do not have left and right and/or front and back bunkers:

1 (front left),2 (2 fronting bunkers only), 3 (left) , 5 (back), 6 (front left), 8, 9(left), 10(front right) , 11( right only, although the water guards the left side) , 14, 15 (right), 17 (two fronting bunkers), 18 (front and right).

Not so sure about 1, but 8 and 14 are some of the most strategic holes in tournament golf. Holes where I actually watched the best in the world show off their chipping skills much more than on heavily bunkered holes. For pro's a bunker shot seems much easier than a chip shot, for our mid handicapper it is the other way around. This year I was at the Tuesday practise day at the Masters, it was interesting to see how much more time the players were investing in practising recovery shots around 14 than at many of the other holes.

On this site I have read that Alister MacKenzie actually stated that 14 was his favourite hole on the golf course. So we may disagree, but I am in good company.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

What's so special about # 1 ?

# 8 and 14

[/quote]

Patrick,

Thanks for your reply. I think this is an interesting discussion.

I did not say a 10-16 hcap can go pin hunting at ANGC, I just said that at symmetrically defended greens, a mid-handicapper will be aiming for the middle of the green on almost every hole. I think that a 10-16 handicapper at ANGC does not need to aim for the middle of the green on each hole, in fact he would be much better of not to do so.

At Augusta National (which I have walked but not played) following holes do not have left and right and/or front and back bunkers:

Holes 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 have water as a flanking feature, so you have to count the water as a hazard, be it flanking or fronting.

1 (front left),2 (2 fronting bunkers only),
# 2 has left and right bunkers

3 (left) , 5 (back), 6 (front left), 8,

9(left),

The green and the bunkering have been changed

10(front right) ,

Not an original green

11( right only, although the water guards the left side) , 14,

15 (right),
Water serves as a hazard, front, left and back

17 (two fronting bunkers),
Left and right

18 (front and right).

Not so sure about 1, but 8 and 14 are some of the most strategic holes in tournament golf.

How is # 8 and # 14 some of the most strategic holes in tournament golf ?

Holes where I actually watched the best in the world show off their chipping skills much more than on heavily bunkered holes.

Heavily bunkered holes, inately, wouldn't show off chipping skills, they would show off bunker skills.

For pro's a bunker shot seems much easier than a chip shot, for our mid handicapper it is the other way around.

For PGA Tour Pros, they are GREAT bunker and chip shot players.
You can't make the PGA Tour having a weak part of your game.

This year I was at the Tuesday practise day at the Masters, it was interesting to see how much more time the players were investing in practising recovery shots around 14 than at many of the other holes.

On this site I have read that Alister MacKenzie actually stated that 14 was his favourite hole on the golf course. So we may disagree, but I am in good company.  

Alister MacKenzie declared that the 16th at Pasatiempo was the best par 4 he crafted.
While it's certainly a wonderful hole, there are other par 4's at Pasatiempo and elsewhere that might give it a run for it's money.


[/quote]

[Cristian]

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.

What's so special about # 1 ?

# 8 and 14

Patrick,

Thanks for your reply. I think this is an interesting discussion.

I did not say a 10-16 hcap can go pin hunting at ANGC, I just said that at symmetrically defended greens, a mid-handicapper will be aiming for the middle of the green on almost every hole. I think that a 10-16 handicapper at ANGC does not need to aim for the middle of the green on each hole, in fact he would be much better of not to do so.

At Augusta National (which I have walked but not played) following holes do not have left and right and/or front and back bunkers:

Holes 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 have water as a flanking feature, so you have to count the water as a hazard, be it flanking or fronting.

1 (front left),2 (2 fronting bunkers only),
# 2 has left and right bunkers

3 (left) , 5 (back), 6 (front left), 8,

9(left),

The green and the bunkering have been changed

10(front right) ,

Not an original green

11( right only, although the water guards the left side) , 14,

15 (right),
Water serves as a hazard, front, left and back

17 (two fronting bunkers),
Left and right

18 (front and right).

Not so sure about 1, but 8 and 14 are some of the most strategic holes in tournament golf.

How is # 8 and # 14 some of the most strategic holes in tournament golf ?

Holes where I actually watched the best in the world show off their chipping skills much more than on heavily bunkered holes.

Heavily bunkered holes, inately, wouldn't show off chipping skills, they would show off bunker skills.

For pro's a bunker shot seems much easier than a chip shot, for our mid handicapper it is the other way around.

For PGA Tour Pros, they are GREAT bunker and chip shot players.
You can't make the PGA Tour having a weak part of your game.

This year I was at the Tuesday practise day at the Masters, it was interesting to see how much more time the players were investing in practising recovery shots around 14 than at many of the other holes.

On this site I have read that Alister MacKenzie actually stated that 14 was his favourite hole on the golf course. So we may disagree, but I am in good company.  

Alister MacKenzie declared that the 16th at Pasatiempo was the best par 4 he crafted.
While it's certainly a wonderful hole, there are other par 4's at Pasatiempo and elsewhere that might give it a run for it's money.


[/quote]
[/quote]

I never claimed that 9 and 10 are original holes, nor was this the point of my post, although I know that at least the original 10th was defended asymmetrically as well.

2 and 17 do not have bunkers left and right of the green. The only thing left and right of those bunkers is their position relative to each other.
15 does not have water left of the green.

But let's not loose sight of the big picture here and concentrate on the principle of our discussion; even if we do not count these holes the difference between the two courses surely is obvious? Pasa only has 2 or three asymmetrically defended greens and that is stretching the definition already.

Do you not see any merit in a course having a majority of holes which are not defended symmetrically, making 95% of all golfers aiming for the middle of the green? And is it not even more admirable if this is avoided whilst still challenging the best players in the world?

For the record: I love Pasatiempo, but for most players ANGC greens complexes make you think a lot more about the approach shots. To me this is a big factor in what makes a green complex great. If you feel different, that's fine, there are a lot of other qualities which make Pasa's greens admirable, especially to the low hcap or pro player who has the ability to aim for sections of greens. Bottom line question I would like to ask you with your experience of playing a lot of the best courses in the US: Do you feel there is merit in asymmetric defense of greens and could you mention courses which succeed in doing so whilst still challenging the accomplished player or do you truly feel this query is irrelevant?

[Mark Pearce]

Brian,

I'm not sure that anyone else on this thread wants to acknowledge TOC exists:

Doesn't TOC have a horse in this race? 

perhaps we need to get the green ink out and do a hole by hole analysis of the TOC greens?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I never claimed that 9 and 10 are original holes, nor was this the point of my post, although I know that at least the original 10th was defended asymmetrically as well.

2 and 17 do not have bunkers left and right of the green.

They sure do.
I think you have to examine the green and bunkers from the golfer's eye and not from an aerial view.
As the golfer plays his 3rd shot into # 2 and his second shot into # 17, those bunkers flank the green left and right.
For the PGA Tour pro standing in the DZ of the second fairway they might not appear to be flanking but to members and guests playing their third shot into that green, they are flanking bunkers.  Having played the hole a half a dozen times I can tell you without fear of contradiction that those bunkers flank the second green from the LZ short of the green.

The only thing left and right of those bunkers is their position relative to each other.
Not true

15 does not have water left of the green.

Again, aerial analysis or analysis from the sidelines doesn't present the view and perspective provided to the golfer standing in the DZ or LZ.
Nor does it provide ample information regarding ball flight into that area.
The slope of the entire left side of the 15th green leads to the water for incoming shots hit left of the green. effectively.
The ramp leading to the 16th is no safe haven for golf balls hit in that direction.

But let's not loose sight of the big picture here and concentrate on the principle of our discussion; even if we do not count these holes the difference between the two courses surely is obvious? Pasa only has 2 or three asymmetrically defended greens and that is stretching the definition already.

From whose view, the crow's view or the golfer's view ?
Go hole by hole and see what greens appear to be symetrically protected by bunkers.
I think you'll be surprised.
In addition, because of their size, I'm not so sure that I'd consider a bunker 30-40 yards removed from the hole location as a flanking bunker.
A perfect example is # 16.  What's lost in this photo is the size & scale of the green.  That green is about 35 yards across.
What's lost in this photo, and probably intended by MacKenzie, a master at camoflage, is the enormous amount of green behind the right side bunker.
A green that's probably 35-40 yards in depth.




Do you not see any merit in a course having a majority of holes which are not defended symmetrically, making 95% of all golfers aiming for the middle of the green?

Every one of ANGC's greens are defended symetrically.
You're just blind to the nature of the defenses.

As I indicated above, it's the signal sent to the golfer's eye by the architectural features, not the aerial view on your monitor from satelite images.

And is it not even more admirable if this is avoided whilst still challenging the best players in the world?

What have PGA Tour Pros got to do with this discussion ?

For the record: I love Pasatiempo, but for most players ANGC greens complexes make you think a lot more about the approach shots.

What's the big deal about the approach shot into # 1 ?
# 2 ?
# 3
# 4
I'll agree that the approach into # 5 takes a good deal of thought
# 6
# 7
# 8
# 9
# 10
On # 11 the water left give great cause for thought
# 12, again, the water is what grabs your attention and directs you to the center of the green
# 13
On # 14 the cant of the green causes one to think
# 15
# 16
# 17
On # 18 carrying the front bunker is "THE" primary thought

I too love Pasatiempo, but, I think you have it backwards.
ANGC's green complexes don't make you think alot more about the approach shots.
Their signals aren't nearly as strong as the tactical signals transmitted at Pasatiempo.
I think you're attempting to look at this through the eyes of the PGA Tour Pro rather than 99.9 % of the golfers in the world.

To me this is a big factor in what makes a green complex great.

To whom ?
The PGA Tour Pro or the rest of the golfing world ?

If you feel different, that's fine, there are a lot of other qualities which make Pasa's greens admirable, especially to the low hcap or pro player who has the ability to aim for sections of greens.

I've played Pasatiempo with mid to high handicappers and they loved it.
Mid to high handicappers aren't hitting 14-16 greens in regulation.

Bottom line question I would like to ask you with your experience of playing a lot of the best courses in the US:
Do you feel there is merit in asymmetric defense of greens and could you mention courses which succeed in doing so whilst still challenging the accomplished player or do you truly feel this query is irrelevant?

I feel that the only symmetrical defense at the green is that presented by holes such as # 17 at TPC Sawgrass or on CBM/SR/CB "short" holes.

Symmetry is determined by what the golfer sees, as the architecture presents itself on the ground, to the golfer's eyes.

You seem to be fixated on bunkers as the sole defense of a green.

The left side of the 8th hole at Pasatiempo presents a great example as to how the adjacent terrain provides a more than adequate defense, absent bunkers.   Likewise the contouring within the putting surface as it relates to the surrounds.

Is the left side of # 8 not brilliantly defended by the adjacent slope in combination with continuation of the slope/contour of the green ?

Is not the entire 15th green at ANGC symmetrically defended by bunkers, terrain and water ?
Ditto # 13 ?
Ditto # 12 ?

Hole after hole at ANGC is symmetrically defended, only the methods of defense vary between bunker, water and terrain.

[Bill_McBride]

Looking at Apple Map's aerial of Pasatiempo, there are no greenside bunkers on 17.  Perhaps they were added after this aerial photo.  The defense of that green has been the vicious but subtle left to right slope from the hillside left.   Don't think a slope can be vicious AND subtle?   Just ask a good player who SEVEN PUTTED during the 2004 King's Putter!

[Cristian]

I never claimed that 9 and 10 are original holes, nor was this the point of my post, although I know that at least the original 10th was defended asymmetrically as well.

2 and 17 do not have bunkers left and right of the green.

They sure do.
I think you have to examine the green and bunkers from the golfer's eye and not from an aerial view.
As the golfer plays his 3rd shot into # 2 and his second shot into # 17, those bunkers flank the green left and right.
For the PGA Tour pro standing in the DZ of the second fairway they might not appear to be flanking but to members and guests playing their third shot into that green, they are flanking bunkers.  Having played the hole a half a dozen times I can tell you without fear of contradiction that those bunkers flank the second green from the LZ short of the green.

The only thing left and right of those bunkers is their position relative to each other.
Not true

15 does not have water left of the green.

Again, aerial analysis or analysis from the sidelines doesn't present the view and perspective provided to the golfer standing in the DZ or LZ.
Nor does it provide ample information regarding ball flight into that area.
The slope of the entire left side of the 15th green leads to the water for incoming shots hit left of the green. effectively.
The ramp leading to the 16th is no safe haven for golf balls hit in that direction.

But let's not loose sight of the big picture here and concentrate on the principle of our discussion; even if we do not count these holes the difference between the two courses surely is obvious? Pasa only has 2 or three asymmetrically defended greens and that is stretching the definition already.

From whose view, the crow's view or the golfer's view ?
Go hole by hole and see what greens appear to be symetrically protected by bunkers.
I think you'll be surprised.
In addition, because of their size, I'm not so sure that I'd consider a bunker 30-40 yards removed from the hole location as a flanking bunker.
A perfect example is # 16.  What's lost in this photo is the size & scale of the green.  That green is about 35 yards across.
What's lost in this photo, and probably intended by MacKenzie, a master at camoflage, is the enormous amount of green behind the right side bunker.
A green that's probably 35-40 yards in depth.




Do you not see any merit in a course having a majority of holes which are not defended symmetrically, making 95% of all golfers aiming for the middle of the green?

Every one of ANGC's greens are defended symetrically.
You're just blind to the nature of the defenses.

As I indicated above, it's the signal sent to the golfer's eye by the architectural features, not the aerial view on your monitor from satelite images.

And is it not even more admirable if this is avoided whilst still challenging the best players in the world?

What have PGA Tour Pros got to do with this discussion ?

For the record: I love Pasatiempo, but for most players ANGC greens complexes make you think a lot more about the approach shots.

What's the big deal about the approach shot into # 1 ?
# 2 ?
# 3
# 4
I'll agree that the approach into # 5 takes a good deal of thought
# 6
# 7
# 8
# 9
# 10
On # 11 the water left give great cause for thought
# 12, again, the water is what grabs your attention and directs you to the center of the green
# 13
On # 14 the cant of the green causes one to think
# 15
# 16
# 17
On # 18 carrying the front bunker is "THE" primary thought

I too love Pasatiempo, but, I think you have it backwards.
ANGC's green complexes don't make you think alot more about the approach shots.
Their signals aren't nearly as strong as the tactical signals transmitted at Pasatiempo.
I think you're attempting to look at this through the eyes of the PGA Tour Pro rather than 99.9 % of the golfers in the world.

To me this is a big factor in what makes a green complex great.

To whom ?
The PGA Tour Pro or the rest of the golfing world ?

If you feel different, that's fine, there are a lot of other qualities which make Pasa's greens admirable, especially to the low hcap or pro player who has the ability to aim for sections of greens.

I've played Pasatiempo with mid to high handicappers and they loved it.
Mid to high handicappers aren't hitting 14-16 greens in regulation.

Bottom line question I would like to ask you with your experience of playing a lot of the best courses in the US:
Do you feel there is merit in asymmetric defense of greens and could you mention courses which succeed in doing so whilst still challenging the accomplished player or do you truly feel this query is irrelevant?

I feel that the only symmetrical defense at the green is that presented by holes such as # 17 at TPC Sawgrass or on CBM/SR/CB "short" holes.

Symmetry is determined by what the golfer sees, as the architecture presents itself on the ground, to the golfer's eyes.

You seem to be fixated on bunkers as the sole defense of a green.

The left side of the 8th hole at Pasatiempo presents a great example as to how the adjacent terrain provides a more than adequate defense, absent bunkers.   Likewise the contouring within the putting surface as it relates to the surrounds.

Is the left side of # 8 not brilliantly defended by the adjacent slope in combination with continuation of the slope/contour of the green ?

Is not the entire 15th green at ANGC symmetrically defended by bunkers, terrain and water ?
Ditto # 13 ?
Ditto # 12 ?

Hole after hole at ANGC is symmetrically defended, only the methods of defense vary between bunker, water and terrain.

I agree that bunkers are not the only means of defense around a green, I would never state the contrary. My focus is on how a hole actually plays, and less how it looks from the fairway, although discrepancies between the two can be very interesting.

I do not agree that the greens at Augusta are mostly symmetrically defended. Even though there is either water, or bunkers and/or terrain around them; All golf holes in the world have water and/or bunkers and/or terrain around them.

I stand by my claim that at Augusta a mid handicapper would not be best off aiming for the middle of the green on most holes, which is the case at Pasa. If you think otherwise we have to agree to disagree on the differences of the green complexes at Pasa and at ANGC. I am curious though why you do not seem to see any merit in asymmetrical greens defense and how it makes a course more interesting for the 95% of all players which do not belong to the top 5%, let alone tour pro's.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I agree that bunkers are not the only means of defense around a green, I would never state the contrary.

My focus is on how a hole actually plays, and less how it looks from the fairway, although discrepancies between the two can be very interesting.

Cristian,

How the hole looks to the golfer often determines how the hole is played.

The golfer's eye receives a tactical signal sent from the architecture.
That signal allows the golfer to formulate a plan of attack.

Without that data, that signal, the golfer can't form a specific plan of attack.

So, how the hole looks to the golfer is a critical, if not the critical factor in determining play.

I do not agree that the greens at Augusta are mostly symmetrically defended.

Do you base that opinion on observation or actual play of the course.

I'd be happy to go through a hole by hole evaluation on both Pasatiempo and ANGC.

Even though there is either water, or bunkers and/or terrain around them;

Don't you think that water, bunkers and terrain influence the golfer's play ?

All golf holes in the world have water and/or bunkers and/or terrain around them.

Yes, but it's how they're configured that determine play.

I stand by my claim that at Augusta a mid handicapper would not be best off aiming for the middle of the green on most holes,

Having played ANGC with Mid-Handicappers I'd be happy to go through a hole by hole analysis with you.

which is the case at Pasa.

I make the same offer for Pasatiempo

If you think otherwise we have to agree to disagree on the differences of the green complexes at Pasa and at ANGC.

That's certainly okay, but having played both, it'll be hard to change my opinion.

I am curious though why you do not seem to see any merit in asymmetrical greens defense

If you look carefully at the holes at Pasatiempo, from the golfer's eye, many, if not most greens are asymmetrical.

and how it makes a course more interesting for the 95% of all players which do not belong to the top 5%, let alone tour pro's.

A green with a bunker on the left and another on the right, doesn't automatically categorize that green as symmetrical.
Offsets and green and bunker configuration along with the terrain have to be considered.

Do you think that the first green at Pasatiempo is and plays symmetrically ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()