Is Pasatiempo Too Hilly To Be A Great Course?

[Tom_Doak]

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.

Yes, one of the more interesting aspects of Pasatiempo's routing is that it plunges straight downhill 180 feet in the first two holes!  Then it pretty much has to tack its way back up to the clubhouse at the 9th, although it does manage to sneak in the 8th hole downhill.  #3 and #6 take up a lot more elevation than most golfers notice.


Adding:  in contrast, the back nine, which is everyone's favorite, is much flatter except for the 11th climbing that steep hill, and the 12th screaming right back down beside it.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I think JK's criticisms fall into the personal preference category.  I have played Pasatiempo numerous times and have gone well out of my way quite a few times to play it.  In fact I even played there the day after missing a cut in serious tournament.  Yes, it sure leaves you gassed after the walk, but it sure is a sensational walk.  Actually,  Capilano is a tougher walk, and nobody seems to complain.  Architectural brilliance is taking a difficult sight and creating something to behold.  Bel Air is a prime example, and a very difficult walk as well.

[John Kavanaugh]

Of course every opinion of mine is based on my personal preferences. On this trip I walked Cal Club, MPCC and Valley Club all using push carts. I carried at The Cliffs but only because I played with one club. 5 wood.


I do not recall being offered the use of a push cart at Pasa. Not sure about caddies either. If you are really interested the construction of the cart paths was substandard to boot.


Is Pasa generally considered a tougher walk than Cal Club? I may have walked Pasa if their culture suggested it in even the slightest manner.

[Joel_Stewart]

For years I was always disappointed in Golf Digest for not rating it in the top 100. I always thought it was the biggest omission especially considering some the crap courses that did make the list.


As I studied it and talked with other panelists, I figured it was not ranked higher for several reasons.


1. It can be a hard walk.
2. It's public.
2A. It's not exclusive.
3. It's a housing community.
4. The 6th and 7th are not well liked.
5. It's hard! If you're a senior or mid to high handicap player you can shoot a high score.
6. If the greens are fast and you're on the wrong side you can 4 putt numerous times.
7. The 18th is a par 3.


That's how many of GD panelists roll. It has nothing to do with the greatness of the course.

[Sean_A]

I can recall having reservations about Roaring Gap because of its hilliness.  I basically tried to lay out what would be the extreme end of ideal for elevation change..on average.  I rather arbitrarily decided on 20 feet per hole as an extreme so 360ish feet of up and down elevation change as on the extreme end of ideal....though I think truly ideal is much less hilly..I think of TOC a one of the best sites I know of golf.  That is different to measuring simply the elevation change of a property.  On this basis I found Roaring Gap to far exceed the ideal to be truly one of the great courses of the world, but I still thought it "run of the mill" great (say a Doak 7) if that makes sense.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of a hillier course I played which I think is great. 

To Pietro's point, I have no idea if another archie could have come up with a routing which minimized the hilly site more than is currently the case.  Maybe Ross came up with brilliant solutions just to create what he did...I am not qualified to offer an opinion. What I am qualified to do is offer an opinion if the existing course is too hilly. For my personal tastes, Roaring Gap is too hilly regardless if that is due to architectural choices, the property or a combination of both.  More objectively, I can fully understand why people would like the course more than I do and there are enough great elements that I would still consider Roaring Gap a great course.  Thats not too different from my stance on Muirfield re 150 bunkers, Merion re strangling rough (maybe this is no longer the case?) engulfing bunkers miles from fairways or TOC re messing up brilliant strategies with rough. 

Happy Hockey

[Mike_Young]

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

No, but I do think it is not the greatest in Ga.  Peachtree is better IMHO but that's just opinion.

[John Kavanaugh]

Don’t forget the bunker work fronting the par 3 15th. The track hoe scrape bunker shape is better suited to Nebraska. And while we are at it, exactly how much was the 17th green softened?


One more before I get on my plane: Have you ever seen how the course is handicapped? You simply should not be forced to give strokes on so many par 3’s. That indicates a weakness in design that I’m not sure how to correlate. Don’t worry, I still won all the bets but it felt backasswards.

[Mike_Young]

Great is a weird word.  I always play Pasa any chance I get and I have never thought that much of the elevation change.  I don't know how great it is but I will continue to enjoy playing it. 
But this thread has made me want to ask a question without starting another thread on the topic.  IMHO an extremely high percentage of the time the clubhouse location on such a site is located at highpoint. Am I right or wrong?  (I think maybe 12 tee is higher than Pasa CH but not sure how much.)  If the CH location absorbs some of the elevation by being located at a lower point it seems that a course does not seem as drastic in elevation change. 

[John Kavanaugh]

For years I was always disappointed in Golf Digest for not rating it in the top 100. I always thought it was the biggest omission especially considering some the crap courses that did make the list.


As I studied it and talked with other panelists, I figured it was not ranked higher for several reasons.


1. It can be a hard walk.
2. It's public.
2A. It's not exclusive.
3. It's a housing community.
4. The 6th and 7th are not well liked.
5. It's hard! If you're a senior or mid to high handicap player you can shoot a high score.
6. If the greens are fast and you're on the wrong side you can 4 putt numerous times.
7. The 18th is a par 3.


That's how many of GD panelists roll. It has nothing to do with the greatness of the course.

Joel,


I was told by someone that follows you on instagram that we played Pasa the same day. Don’t you think that if Pasa was private that it would be a better experience? The conditioning was mid level muni at best, the service worse and the price of $330 out of whack. I think for a course to be great it needs a culture. Good or bad, not some confused hybrid.

[Ira Fishman]

Great is a weird word.  I always play Pasa any chance I get and I have never thought that much of the elevation change.  I don't know how great it is but I will continue to enjoy playing it. 
But this thread has made me want to ask a question without starting another thread on the topic.  IMHO an extremely high percentage of the time the clubhouse location on such a site is located at highpoint. Am I right or wrong?  (I think maybe 12 tee is higher than Pasa CH but not sure how much.)  If the CH location absorbs some of the elevation by being located at a lower point it seems that a course does not seem as drastic in elevation change.

Mike,


Great is a weird word which is evidence of the inadequacy of language. However, I am not sure that numbers work any better. Tom and Ran rate Pasa as a 7 which means do not bother unless you are within 100 miles of the course.


Ira

[John Kavanaugh]

I also felt that there was a lack of closely mown chipping areas for a high end course. But then again the shaggy greenside rough was old school. I would say that Pasa isn’t great not because of the hills but because it is impossible to name and defend a minimum of 10 great holes. Sitting here a few days removed I’m having trouble getting past 10 and 16. Knowing that 1,6,7,8,9,17 and 18 are average at best that leaves little room for error. With apologies I can not remember 4,5,11,12,13 and 14. I recall an interesting landform near 13 or 14 but am not sure which hole it was on.

[John Kirk]

I like the shots at Pasatiempo.  You have to judge how much uphill to play #9 and #11, which both play more than one club uphill.  Approach shots on #10, #13 and #16 are downhill shots from (often) downhill lies.  These are the types of shots you don't see too often.

You don't have to curve shots very much.  A little draw off #10 and #16 tee can help.


If asked to pick the top ten holes, I would choose 2-3-4-5, then 10-11-12-13-14-16 on the back.  The best hole is probably 2.  The worst hole is 8, only two or maybe three small places on the green you can put the hole.  6 is underrated.


Short game play is very delicate when the course is in good shape.  I'd also argue short game play is a bit repetitive (and strange due to the steep slopes) there.  Some really strange putts there, and some short putts that break a lot.



 

[James Brown]

It’s definitely not too hilly as a great course for my taste.   Olympic and Bandon Trails are both hillier and PLAY hillier that Pasa.


And Pasa’s greens are not too much either.  They are really tough, but interesting and fair. 


As for the pedigree, I will concede that if I didn’t know the history and lineage of that course, I may not have thought so much of it stepping on the first tee, but I have visiting a whole bunch of courses that were supposedly great on pedigree that I was did not measure up and this was not one of them.  I found 11 and 16 to be two of the most interesting par fours I have seen anywhere. 

[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.

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.

All courses I have played multiple times. I like Pasatiempo better than the rest but think of the slopes as presenting similar challenges..  The effect is exacerbated at Kapalua by a 20 mph downhill tradewind. 


 I doubt I would ever walk Kapalua or Stoneagle. I have walked Northland many times and holes 2-3 are demanding  but all of the bad hill climbing is done at that point. 

[V_Halyard]

Not that this is relevant but played Pasa after walking/Carrying the Chabot Lakes Muny in Oakland, so Pasa felt like an exclusive velvet roped prairie land.  No I did not find it too hilly but I also walk/carry and adore Northland as Topp opined. Are the greens a bit slopey for 12 Stimp in 2019? Perhaps. But also perhaps a 12 Stimp is best used on flatter courses.
If we are not micro-a'La'-Carting the "Great Course" definition, I would be hard pressed and somewhat in the throes of dementia for me to say I don't think Pasa is a work of greatness...

[Ronald Montesano]

Preamble: Now, more than ever, I know that the only way to keep the JK and me together, would be to stuff us into a golf cart, affix doors, and lock them. Did the influence of the Victoria National Fish Hatchery on the JK impact his opening diatribe? The later comment on "a culture" is an odd one to me. I heard it once before, at an elite club, being asked about "private club culture" in Buffalo. It reeks of either exclusivity, or inclusion, but not both. That's a shame, because there are many fence-sitters who wish to do our level best, to be many things to many people.


Corpus: I played Pasatiempo one time, in 2015. I walked Crystal Downs in 2019. I haven't been on Augusta National. I'm 54 years old, 5'9", 173 pounds, and use a push cart most days. I love to walk. I ride when I'm shooting a golf course and need multiple lenses and camera bodies, or in those rare circumstances when the terrain demands it. The most difficult course I found to walk and enjoy, also in 2015, was Chambers Bay. One playing/walking of a golf course is not enough to judge its greatness nor its perfection. Knowing that a course is a MacKenzie, bring to the course both expectation and baggage.


Deus Ex Machina: How many holes did I wish to have a chance to replay? All 18. Most of them burned their trace onto my golfing memory; I wanted to know how he routed that fairway, why he chose to leave those tall trees, who did the roofing on his house, what lives deep in the barranca, how many ways can you play the 10th, the 11th, damnit, every hole on the course! More than anything, I wanted to putt and putt and putt. Travis and MacKenzie are the greens-designers whose work I crave to see. I've had multiple opps to putt Travis greens, but precious few (one) to putt MacKenzie greens. If taken off to prison for using the words "great" and "perfect" to define Pasatiempo, I would stand with you and defend your application of those adjectives as just and appropriate.

[Tim Gallant]

Tom,


I have gone through this thread a few times, and I'm still not 100% sure what's being asked, but if I take the title and your OP at its word, then my answer in short would be no.


When assessing a course, I tend to place a high value on the unique characteristics of a golf course that can't be found elsewhere. I value individuality and I believe that Pasatiempo is great, in part, because the hilliness of the site helps provide and accentuate the unique characteristics of the course that I have not seen many other places.


As you say, you can't divorce the site from the course, and in my mind, the site can either contribute in a positive way, or it can jar with the design if not done properly.


To illustrate this point, I have been thinking of a recent trip I took to Barnbougle where I played both courses. When reading this thread, I started thinking more and more about Lost Farm. I much preferred the Dunes course because I felt it tacked through the land in a much more diverse and varied way, but I appreciate the land was softer than where Lost Farm was built.


When judging Lost Farm, I don't fault it because it wasn't built on the same land as the Dunes course, but I do question whether, when maximised, the Lost Farm site could have only ever deliver a good (maybe even great) course, but not an exceptional one. I trust that C&C did the best routing they could find, and yet, at very few points during the course of the round did I feel that the steepness of the terrain aided and accentuated the design in a way that made it feel unique / original. Instead, it felt as if the routing tacked around the steepest parts of the property, bumping against it at certain points, but never working in harmony with the landforms (possibly because it would have been impossible).


To Jeff's point, the 14th is a brilliant and strategy par-4, but the greenside, with it's shelved putting surface, felt slightly artificial when looking at the slopes of the surrounding dunes land.


I believe Pasatiempo is a wonderful example for how a challenging site can accentuate the design to create something memorable, and unique.


Another example where I feel the hilliness of the site provides the interest and unique characteristics of a course would be Eastward Ho!

[Michael Moore]

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.

Jeff -
 
I don't think everyone or even a small percentage of us has contemplated the slope of your average retaining wall.
 
I visit this site for two reasons. One is, yeah, to watch John Kavanaugh have to explain to people that the emotional experience of teeing off number one at Pebble can't be matched anywhere. The second, equally rare nugget is people like you talking about the high side pushing the flag location limit of three percent.
 
Can you please draw a picture of what you are talking about? Thanks.

[Eric LeFante]

Is Pasa generally considered a tougher walk than Cal Club? I may have walked Pasa if their culture suggested it in even the slightest manner.

I carried my bag at Pasa and Cal Club and thought Cal Club was a much more difficult walk than Pasa. I do not think Pasa is too hilly to be considered great.


I think the steepest uphill shot I've every played is 15 at Bethpage Black. The actual elevation changes on 9 and 11 at Pasa are much greater than 15 at the Black but to me it didn't feel that way. I was shocked when I found out 11 plays 90 feet uphill. I don't think 1 and 2 at Pasa are too downhill. 10 at Augusta drops 110 feet I believe.


The hole at Pasa that surprised me the most is 3; I believe the hole is close to its original length. I can't believe AM built a hole in 1929 that plays that long to such a well guarded and difficult green.

[Sean Leary]

I am a big Pasa fan, as it was what started my interest in architecture 20 plus years ago.


However, the one one hole that I always thought was a bit overrated was the famed 16th.  Wondering whether the architect’s proclamation about it being his best par 4 affected the perspective of others?

[Ira Fishman]

I am a big Pasa fan, as it was what started my interest in architecture 20 plus years ago.


However, the one one hole that I always thought was a bit overrated was the famed 16th.  Wondering whether the architect’s proclamation about it being his best par 4 affected the perspective of others?

I thought 10, 11, and 14 better than 16 even though 16 is quite good. 


Ira

[Tim Gallant]

I am a big Pasa fan, as it was what started my interest in architecture 20 plus years ago.


However, the one one hole that I always thought was a bit overrated was the famed 16th.  Wondering whether the architect’s proclamation about it being his best par 4 affected the perspective of others?

I thought 10, 11, and 14 better than 16 even though 16 is quite good. 


Ira

Sean and Ira,


Interesting points. Preferences aside, do you not think 16 is one of the best examples of an interesting greensite built on a very steep hillside?

[John Kavanaugh]

Is Pasa generally considered a tougher walk than Cal Club? I may have walked Pasa if their culture suggested it in even the slightest manner.

I carried my bag at Pasa and Cal Club and thought Cal Club was a much more difficult walk than Pasa. I do not think Pasa is too hilly to be considered great.

Thank you. I just walked Cal Club using a push cart on the 8th day of a golf trip and consider it wonderful. You pull into Cal Club and everyone is walking, at Pasa everyone is riding. While some see culture as the new "C" word it sets up my experience before I reach for a tee.Of the nine days playing Pasa was the only course where I wore shorts. Perhaps I never had my mind right the entire day.

[Steve_Lovett]

I walked and carried my bag at Pasatiempo a few years ago. My senses were heightened as I'd never played it before and was excited to take it in. Of all of my reactions, the hilly nature of the place never entered into my consciousness. I thought it was brilliant!


My only criticism were the 6th and 7th holes. I thought they were awkward and narrow, especially as compared with the rest of the place.


As for the 16th, the green is a wild ride - a semi-outragous folly. It's a fun hole - maybe not technically the best. Two-putting can be a super exhilarating experience! 

[Jim Hoak]

John, with regard to your post #35, looking at individual  holes--I don't disagree strongly with most of your categorization.
You said you don't recall #4 and 5--they are good holes (par 4 and par 3)--not world class but good.  The rest of the front side, I would agree with you.
Where I fall out from you is the back side.  I think #11 is one of the best par 4's I know!  I can't believe you don't remember it.  I happen to like #18--is your objection to it just that it is a closing par 3?  With the possible exception of #17, I think the back 9 at Pasatiempo is terrific--8 wonderful holes.