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.