[Tom_Doak]

i'm starting this thread as the offshoot of two others.


John K complains on the thread about "frank commentary" that his commentary about Pasatiempo was dismissed.


He did say some other things about the course which were more inflammatory, but this was the meat of his criticism:




I don’t understand your comment on the genius of the routing. I found Pasa to be the least walkable course on the trip. I found the greens to lack any subtlety, the bunkers more suited for the Midwest and nary a contrarian stance that fought a primary slope. The course seems to be searching for an identity beyond that of a washed up athlete charging for autographs at a trade show. What did I miss?


To me, all of his particulars there go back to the same root cause, which he failed to mention:  that Pasatiempo is perhaps the single steepest course that anyone talks about as a great course, with knock-on effects such as the above.  So, I conclude that Pasatiempo is just too hilly for John's tastes.  What say you?

[Tom_Doak]

One of the problems I have with John's criticism is that it fails to observe reality.  Pasatiempo was a very hilly site for a golf course, and you can't wish that away.  You can either dismiss it outright, on that basis, or you can argue how it should have been done differently, in the circumstances.


The greens are very severe BECAUSE they are set into a hilly site.  It's not just coincidental that MacKenzie's three most severe sets of greens [Pasa, Augusta, Crystal Downs] are on his three hilliest sites . . . that's effect and cause.  Likewise, most of the other sets of greens you'll think of as severe [Oakmont, Oakland Hills] are also on hilly sites.  [Lost Dunes is a prominent exception  ]


And it's hard to find a contrarian stance that fights a primary slope, when the primary slope is 5-10%.  There's less room for subtlety in those situations.


Does that make Pasatiempo not a great course, or just not a course for everyone's tastes?  That's what the debate should be.  We shouldn't be arguing the facts - John has the facts correct, even though he fails to recognize them as such, and skips straight to the opinion.




And for those of us who actually build courses, the debate should be, what do you do when you get a site like Pasatiempo?  Do you pass on it?  Do you try to fight it?  Or do you make the most of what it has, and not apologize for what it's not?


Stone Eagle was my own response to Pasatiempo.  The slopes are quite similar:  the biggest holes go up and down the hill 90 feet at a time, which is the same as the 1st, 2nd, 9th, 11th and 12th at Pasa.  In fact, I only thought it was possible that we could make those holes work because I had been working at Pasatiempo previously, and I had the topo maps, so I knew I was working in the same ballpark.

[Ally Mcintosh]

The greens are very severe BECAUSE they are set into a hilly site.  It's not just coincidental that MacKenzie's three most severe sets of greens [Pasa, Augusta, Crystal Downs] are on his three hilliest sites . . . that's effect and cause.  Likewise, most of the other sets of greens you'll think of as severe [Oakmont, Oakland Hills] are also on hilly sites.


And it's hard to find a contrarian stance that fights a primary slope, when the primary slope is 5-10%......

.....And for those of us who actually build courses, the debate should be, what do you do when you get a site like Pasatiempo?  Do you pass on it?  Do you try to fight it?  Or do you make the most of what it has, and not apologize for what it's not.

So I haven’t been to Pasatiempo... But I have built a course at Carne. Are they similar in their hilliness?


You don’t apologise for what it’s not and try to emphasise the excitement in what it is. For the 3rd nine in Carne, we had the difficulty of having to route a course through the severest dunes whilst intertwining with the existing 18. A lot of that routing was about reducing the green to tee walks and elevation change wherever possible. Thus we kept a par three up on a ridge rather than go round a hill and back up again with two long fours.


We had to deal with one significant in-hole descent and one significant in-hole climb in order to traverse the main dune ridge. By using two short par fours for these holes, we provided interest and strategy in the downhill hole and stopped the uphill one becoming a slog.


As to your point about severe greens arising from effect and cause, I had to deal with exactly the same issues if we didn’t want to build another bunch of Hackett-like shelves. Hence we embraced some pretty crazy undulations to tie in the back of a site to the front. These make perfect sense when you look at the crazy landscape all around.


Could it be classed as a great course? Well some people find Carne to be their favourite of all courses because of the sheer individuality and number of heart stopping moments. It’s not subtle so appeals less to a certain kind of traditionalist and those who don’t like to climb hills consistently.... Not sure if there’s a better adventure in golf though... so it depends on your definition of great. I guess Pasatiempo is the same in that regard? Although it never appeared that hilly to me - more so than Augusta?

[Tom_Doak]

Ally:


The two are different, though the problems are similar.  Pasatiempo is 300 feet from top to bottom and there were places where the routing had to go straight up or down the slope . . . for many who like to walk, that is uncomfortably steep.  Making the transitions you talk about at Carne is similar.


Your point about Hackett's "shelves" is one of the things I really didn't like about the original 18 holes:  his attempts to make the course more playable are feeble and out of scale with the magnificent landscape.  I know, he didn't have any money, but for me, they either should have been done on a much bigger scale [and there are a couple that needed that], or not have been done at all.  The trick is not to make a shelf, but to remove the whole dune that creates the objectionable slope, or else to fill the bowl below.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,



I haven't played Pasa in several years, so hard to comment based on memory. I always thought Mac did a masterful job of reducing most of impact of those elevation changes in the routing.


Your comment on greens is the kind of thing the enthusiast rarely seems to consider here.  Even today, with earthmoving equipment, I find I need to have the main slopes of greens steeper on steeper sites just to catch up to grade outside the green complex area - both on the green and the banks around.


Everyone (I think) knows that retaining walls have "batter" i.e. subtle slope back, not because its needed structurally, but if they built them straight vertically, they would look like they were falling over.  Similarly, tees and greens cut in cross slopes appear to be sloped back to the uphill side.  You have to exaggerate their slope to the low side to make them look right. 


Tees need to cross slope to the low side.  The typical swale that comes out the green front can't be in the center or high side of the green, its got to exit on the lower third or quarter.  The low side of the that swale should have minimum side/upslope usually only slope up sideways to the low side the absolute minimum (if at all, to avoid draining into a bunker) while the high side has to push the flag location limit of 3% or even a bit more depending on how severe the slope of the green site is.

Short version - steeper slopes in nature really do require steeper slopes on greens to look right.  And, it generally proves the old adage that greens drain towards the ocean, lake, etc., because in Mac's day especially, they absolutely had to.

Long post to describe a short point about the craft of gca, and how great ideas need to get the details right to make a good golf hole.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, Ally
but would you expect (or even want) golfers to 'make allowances' for you and your work?
to judge not the golf course, as it is and as they actually play it, but instead what the architect was able 'to do with' a very hilly site, or a very flat one?
isn't that the very thing that architects tend to ask us *not* to do, i.e. to try rate the 'architecture' independently of/separate from the golf course as a whole?
It feels to me like the other side of a coin: akin to asking whether Pac Dunes or Carne would be as 'good' if they weren't in such lovely settings by the sea.
Jeff just noted that Mac "did a masterful job" of reducing the impact of the elevation changes. Okay; but to put it too bluntly: why should I care about that? Why should JK care about Mac's *art & craft* when all the he can truly experience is Mac's *golf course*?
I like reading the inside baseball talk of practitioners talking among themselves -- but it does feel a titch like apples and oranges. For you, about your 'goals' for the work, for us in truth only about the 'results'.
But maybe I'm missing what you're really asking.

P 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


Don't get your point.  While JK has no need to articulate what he likes or doesn't (but probably can't help himself and will  ) the fact remains that if Mac didn't do the job well, he wouldn't have enjoyed it at all.  Hey, without architecture there can't be golf, right?  And without good architecture, there can't be good golf.

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


Everyone's entitled to their opinion, even JK.  And I agree with you that one's opinion should be based on the golf holes you played, and not who the architect was.


But when you criticize a course without relation to the place where it's built, I think your opinion starts to become much less meaningful.  To take it to extremes:  "I like to have an ocean view" is not a good critique of Prairie Dunes.  It may be the difference between you placing it in your top ten, or just out of that lofty group, but there is no point in talking about something that's impossible.


To those of us who practice, there are many more subtle criticisms that fall in the same camp.  Mike Young will tell you that if you insist on frilly bunkers, you're not going to like many courses built on Georgia clay, or you're going to have to ignore some glaring issues [Cuscowilla].  Jeff B. will tell you that if you insist that every course should have 100 bunkers, you're not going to like a course that was built for a client who couldn't afford those, because the local market wouldn't deliver a high enough green fee.  And I could tell you that if you're not willing to consider "wider and more undulating" as a balanced substitute for "tighter and flatter", then you are not going to like my courses much, because you're not very open-minded about what shots should be rewarded.


It doesn't mean you have to agree with us.  But wishing we had built the 13th at Augusta, instead of the hole we did build, is not very practical or meaningful.  You don't have to like Pasatiempo as much as Pebble Beach, but you can't criticize it for not having an oceanfront finish, and finding five ways to say "it's too hilly" without identifying the root cause is much the same.

[John Emerson]

little OT-Haven’t seen Pasa, but I’d be willing to be AM never imagined today’s green speeds.  I feel like green speeds have ruined many aspects of great green building.

[John Emerson]

I feel like whats happening is that “Well Pasa is great, but....”. Shouldnt a course, if considered great, come with no caveat, no asterisks, no gray area??  It either is, or it isn’t right?

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, Jeff - thanks.

Because I too strive to get better & do good work in a couple of my own 'arts & crafts', I've always been interested in discussions here about the 'process', especially among the architects/industry people themselves -- and I tend to understand and side with architects when you ask for "meaningful" opinions.

[In getting feedback and judgement on some of my own professional writing assignments or proposals over the years, it's been remarkable to me how few people are able to make the distinction between "this doesn't work" and "I don't like this".] 

But that was my point about apples and oranges: i.e. if we all offered (honest) opinions/analysis in the way Tom describes in his last post, it would no doubt be much more meaningful for *architects*. But would it have much meaning, or any more meaning/relevance, for *golfers*, particularly those looking for recommendations?     

I suppose, when it comes right down to it, the answer to that says a lot about what gca.com is, or could be, or should be? Is it mainly a forum that tries -- however badly, messily, presumptuously, and mostly ineffectively -- to 'raise the bar' for golf course architecture via that kind of meaningful analysis and opinions/discussions? Or is it mainly a social media site where we can make friends with others who love golf and share our news & views about courses that we like and that we think great?

P   

[Tom_Doak]

I feel like whats happening is that “Well Pasa is great, but....”. Shouldnt a course, if considered great, come with no caveat, no asterisks, no gray area??  It either is, or it isn’t right?

Wrong.


Everybody's got a different definition of what's great, and it's not the job of every course to try and meet that standard for every golfer. 


Just because you write off a course, doesn't mean someone else should.  The "gray area" is also known as a difference of opinion.  And it's a good thing to get all those opinions out on the table.

[Ira Fishman]

I played Pasa once two years ago. Neither my wife nor I found it a difficult walk. We did have a caddie, but I also was celebrating turning 60 and had not exercised since I was 18.


Tom, if you had not explained that the hilly site explains the greens, I would have just thought that they were heavily contoured and a lot of fun to putt plus they presented options/challenges for the short game. But I like contoured greens—Streamsong Black’s greens were too large in several cases, but I enjoyed the contours.


As far as the routing, Number 6 and 17 were a bit boring, but the rest, particularly the back, were varied and inventive. Even 13 which could have been a drag, swung around to green in a manner that held my interest. I know that Number 8 is controversial because of the green, but I thought it a real shot challenge to try to get to the correct part of the green. There also were some wonderful touches such as the mound on the front of Number 7 and the framing of the Ocean on Number 1 tee.


I do not understand enough about bunkers despite reading the many threads on here to evaluate Pasa’s from a pure architecture perspective, but they were pleasing to my eye.


Long and short of it, for my tastes Pasa is a great course.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

I suppose, when it comes right down to it, the answer to that says a lot about what gca.com is, or could be, or should be? Is it mainly a forum that tries -- however badly, messily, presumptuously, and mostly ineffectively -- to 'raise the bar' for golf course architecture via that kind of meaningful analysis and opinions/discussions? Or is it mainly a social media site where we can make friends with others who love golf and share our news & views about courses that we like and that we think great?

It was once more the first, and now it's more the second, I fear.  Though there have always been exceptions to the rule.


In the meantime, in the case of Pasatiempo, it's good to have the diversity of opinion shared openly . . . I'm just asking that it should be labeled correctly.  Talking about what it doesn't have [easily walkable, interesting counter-slopes] is silly when not put in context.  Those things couldn't really have been fixed, they were inherent to the site.  It's fine to talk about them as drawbacks, but stupid not to talk about why, or to assume that others should share the same biases.

[Jason Topp]

It's a fair question. The slope dominates the experience at Pasatiempo as it does at Northland in Minnesota and Stoneagle in Palm Springs or Kapalua in Hawaii. Most of us underestimate its impact and it can be frustrating to watch a putt that appears uphill accelerate. 


I do not think the slope disqualifies a course from being a great course.  It is a factor like a prevailing wind that needs to be taken into account by the player. 


I reject the notion that Pasatiempo is too difficult to walk.  The uphill and downhill bits are broken up pretty nicely. 

[Ryan Farrow]

I just played Pasatiempo in September, a day or two after walking Cypress Point and Pebble. I walked away from my round at Pasatiempo having my expectations far exceeded (Cypress was met and Pebble was a severe disappointment).


Pasatiempo was probably the most beautiful bunkered golf course I have ever seen. With that said, I found it a little over bunkered around the greens but it seems like some of the "excess" bunkering also serves the purpose of keeping a ball in play.


The greens played perfect when I was there, probably around a 9 and they did not feel overly severe. Yes there are quite a few tiered greens but they typically come at the most extreme parts of the property and on some of the shorter holes, 16 & 18 for example. The green sizes and shapes are fantastic and provide great variety. Are they not some of Mackenzie's most interesting greens?


I don't feel like I am in any position to judge the severity of the ground at Pasatiempo. I grew up playing golf in Pittsburgh,on the side of hill, so my personal threshold for severity is a lot higher than most. Yes it is hilly, no the terrain is not too severe to be considered great. Would I want to play 18 here every day? Perhaps up to a certain age, I can see some of the older folks having a hard time out there walking the course. With that said, it is not relentless and there are plenty stretches out there to catch your breath, it is not 18 holes of up and down.


It's a top 10 public access course in the U.S. in my opinion. I consider that great. No asterisks.

[Tom_Doak]

It's a fair question. The slope dominates the experience at Pasatiempo as it does at Northland in Minnesota and Stoneagle in Palm Springs or Kapalua in Hawaii. Most of us underestimate its impact and it can be frustrating to watch a putt that appears uphill accelerate. 


I do not think the slope disqualifies a course from being a great course.  It is a factor like a prevailing wind that needs to be taken into account by the player. 


I reject the notion that Pasatiempo is too difficult to walk.  The uphill and downhill bits are broken up pretty nicely.

Jason:


That's a good list of comparables.  [Edit:  Come to think of it, Capilano should be in there, too.]


How do you consider the other three courses, by the same standard?  Do some of them cross the line for you?  Kapalua is the only one of the three that has a segment [from 5 to  6] that precludes most people walking it.  Of course, most golfers in Hawaii don't walk, anyway.

[Jeff Schley]

Pasa is top notch IMO as I am biased, but any MacKenzie I feel honored to experience and respect his work a great deal. To have it preserved to a very good degree as it has being public is what we need more of IMO. How many publicly accessible courses from the Golden Age masters are out there?  Not very many, so let's be glad we have what we do. Those that can play the exclusive privates (many on here) are blessed, but I try and have a pillar of my view as how can we increase the number of good public golf courses. Wonderful greens, with 16th my favorite certainly. I also like 7 and 9 (I know easy par 5). The Mackenzie bunkering is like having grandmas chocolate chip cookies every night, how can you not like em? I should note we took carts and that perhaps helped us get around without much trouble. If the fog in the morning would clear up quicker so as not to delay the start times in the summer I would be grateful. 

[Tom_Doak]

Pasa is top notch IMO as I am biased, but any MacKenzie I feel honored to experience and respect his work a great deal. To have it preserved to a very good degree as it has being public is what we need more of IMO. How many publicly accessible courses from the Golden Age masters are out there? 

There is no doubt that part of Pasatiempo's ranking is the fact that it was MacKenzie who worked on it - separate from the actual work.  I almost count that as a point against it, because that bias is so prevalent amongst rater types. 


Similarly, I doubt anyone would even talk about Sharp Park had not MacKenzie been there for a little while.

[Kalen Braley]

I feel like whats happening is that “Well Pasa is great, but....”. Shouldnt a course, if considered great, come with no caveat, no asterisks, no gray area??  It either is, or it isn’t right?

John,

I've seen several threads and posts over the years on Pasatiempo on GCA, but I never recall having seen anyone play the course and swear they wouldn't go back.  I may be wrong, and maybe someone will chime in, but when considering if something is great or not...1 negative data point does not override the hundreds of positive ones otherwise.

As for JK insisting it's just his honest opinion, well that may be, but given he's poked his stick so many times on nearly every issue on this site, he has to understand others will question if he's being genuine or not, especially when he chimes in with something like that.

P.S.  Is anyone claiming ANGC isn't great either?  It has just as much top to bottom elevation differential as Pasa.

[Ira Fishman]

It's a fair question. The slope dominates the experience at Pasatiempo as it does at Northland in Minnesota and Stoneagle in Palm Springs or Kapalua in Hawaii. Most of us underestimate its impact and it can be frustrating to watch a putt that appears uphill accelerate. 


I do not think the slope disqualifies a course from being a great course.  It is a factor like a prevailing wind that needs to be taken into account by the player. 


I reject the notion that Pasatiempo is too difficult to walk.  The uphill and downhill bits are broken up pretty nicely.

Jason:


That's a good list of comparables. 


How do you consider the other three courses, by the same standard?  Do some of them cross the line for you?  Kapalua is the only one of the three that has a segment [from 5 to  6] that precludes most people walking it.  Of course, most golfers in Hawaii don't walk, anyway.

Not to preempt Jason, but I did not particularly enjoy Kapalua. We rode (9 to 10 also a pretty good hike). I am not sure that one could do better on the back nine working up the steep slope, but 13 out of character and not that interesting and the slope does not affect the hole that much. More to the point, Numbers 2-4, 7, and 9 struck me as not particularly inventive or strategic.


Ira

[Jeff Schley]

Pasa is top notch IMO as I am biased, but any MacKenzie I feel honored to experience and respect his work a great deal. To have it preserved to a very good degree as it has being public is what we need more of IMO. How many publicly accessible courses from the Golden Age masters are out there? 

There is no doubt that part of Pasatiempo's ranking is the fact that it was MacKenzie who worked on it - separate from the actual work.  I almost count that as a point against it, because that bias is so prevalent amongst rater types. 


Similarly, I doubt anyone would even talk about Sharp Park had not MacKenzie been there for a little while.

I'm not a rater, I'm a golfer who is a Mackenzie fan.  I make no apologies for holding anything MacKenzie in high esteem as biased as it maybe. I do think it is a gem of a course and everyone has their own opinions, with mine firmly planted in a +1 for Mackenzie.  Golfing at a course that was golf's greatest GCA IMO does give me an extra heartbeat, for we don't have enough and I thoroughly enjoy it. I'll recuse myself from any rankings of MacKenzie, but still happily play his courses as much as possible.


edit formatting AGAIN!  jeez

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  Is anyone claiming ANGC isn't great either?  It has just as much top to bottom elevation differential as Pasa.

Actually, it's only 2/3 as much IIRC, but they did go up and down the same slope more often in the routing.


The more I read the answers on this thread the worse I feel about the title of it.  "Is it great?" is too much of a binary choice, like so much of what serves as political discussion nowadays.  I might as well have asked "Is it perfect?"


It's possible to admire lots of things about Pasatiempo and still rate it 8 out of 10, but not dismiss it out of hand.


That John K thought the first hole at Pebble Beach was a perfect opening hole was more ridiculous to me than anything he said about Pasatiempo . . . but he does tend to frame things in black and white.

[JBovay]

Is Pasatiempo Too Hilly To Be A Great Course?


No.

It's my favorite course I've played in the entire United States.

It's a little silly to say that it's not walkable, given that it was built in 1929.

To me, the hilliness is an asset, not a drawback. Just like the barrancas are.

[Kalen Braley]

I stand corrected, its about 175 feet differential from 12 green to near 1 tee according to Google Maps.

P.S.  I also walked Pasa when I played it and recall most of the up and down being on the front 9, so that helps when ones legs are still fresh.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()