[Tom_Doak]

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.


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

Tim:


Thank you for this response, which I think is the best I've seen so far:  that Pasatiempo is great BECAUSE it is hilly, and takes advantage of those hills in a way other courses do not.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jim,


I just did a search for Pasatiempo 11 and after reading through a few threads can't believe that I forgot it either. What a God awful goofball of a hole. I will never understand how the same people can defend some of these holes at Pasa and write off the same hole designed by Jim Engh.


On a side note that is relevant. The first time I played Pasa I went around town telling all my buddies how I played a course in California designed by the guy who built ANGC. I hate that about myself. The whole coming of age in the 80's brand name braggadocio.

[John Kirk]

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

I agree with these posts.  #16 is beautiful to look at, but awkward and difficult to play.  Maybe it's just too hard for me to like.  It also has out of bounds left and long of the green in play.

[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

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?

Tim,


It certainly is an excellent example, but I have played a fair number of mountain and/or hilly courses so "best" might be a stretch for me.  The Grove Park Inn, Broadmoor West, Primland, and even course like Mid Pines (I am thinking Numbers 6 and 15--two Par Fives) all have some very good hillside greens.  Of course, maybe that list just confirms that I am a fan of Ross.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

I too think 10, 11, 14 are terrific holes...as well as 16.  A big reason I like it is its uniqueness, to this day cresting over the hogsback fairway and seeing that green and surrounds unfold before me was nothing short of a delight! Yes the hole got me with a double as I recall, but I didn't mind one bit.

P.S.  Most underrated hole - #5.  Just a neat little par 3 that seems to always get lost in the discussion, but then again, I love all the par 3s at Pasa, (even 15) 

[Paul Jones]

I agree with almost all of what John Kavanaugh has said about Pasa, but it is most of those reasons that I like the course.  I live in Louisiana and we have almost 100% flat courses since we have no elevation change (besides going below sea-level).

[Alex Miller]

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 par 4's--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.

5 is a par 3. Potentially forgettable (see: right now) but a solid hole that is to my liking. It is likely stronger than 6 and 7 and weaker than the preceding 4 holes.


Re: #11 - agreed it's an unforgettable hole and an example of great architecture that uses angles and the land to create strategy and challenge for the golfer. Perhaps JK just walked from 10 green to 13 tee to avoid the hill? For that matter hole 12 is not talked about enough as being a wonderful counterpart to the 11th. You're rewarded for your walk with an amazing view and thrilling tee shot down the hill. Similarly the goal is to play far enough down the fairway for a preferred angle into the green, tucked across the barranca.


Jim, agree with your last line completely. It may be the best inland 9 holes in the U.S.

[Jason Topp]

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?

Sean - I agree.  I think the green was designed for 1920's green speeds.  It is more straightforward now than when I first played it.  There used to be a tree in the fairway.

[Alex Miller]

Jim,


I just did a search for Pasatiempo 11 and after reading through a few threads can't believe that I forgot it either. What a God awful goofball of a hole. I will never understand how the same people can defend some of these holes at Pasa and write off the same hole designed by Jim Engh.


On a side note that is relevant. The first time I played Pasa I went around town telling all my buddies how I played a course in California designed by the guy who built ANGC. I hate that about myself. The whole coming of age in the 80's brand name braggadocio.

Please refer the group here to the "same hole" or a comparable one by another architect. It'd be great to compare and contrast.

[Kalen Braley]

The only one I can think of is 18 at Lakota Canyon, where it has some partial similarities.  But then again, I think LC 18 is a fantastic hole.

[Tom_Doak]

The only one I can think of is 18 at Lakota Canyon, where it has some partial similarities.  But then again, I think LC 18 is a fantastic hole.

That's supposed to be a similar hole?  It's a par-5 for starters, with two forced carries unless you can skip them both and go straight for the green [which is not an option at Pasatiempo].  And is the hole pictured playing sharply uphill?  I have never been there, but I always guessed it was downhill from looking at this photo.

[Pete Lavallee]

Pasatiempois one of my favorite courses, I first played it in 1984 on a trip that included Pebble Beach and I liked Pasa better. I’ve been fortunate to play it around 10 times and never found the walk oppressive; heck I even wore shorts most times!


Even 17 which most would find as the weakest link has a fantastic green that defies gravity with its fantastic hidden slope; just ask Shivas who 5 jacked there during a KP!


6 &7 were probably much more interesting before the tree planting. There was a bunker that could hide 100 men that was lost. Let’s face it, you were always trying to play down the left of 7 to open up a path to the green so the trees really weren’t necessary.


The lack of exclusivity comes from the fact that the course incorporated after a wealthy member bailed it out following the Depression, they need the outside income to make ends meet. I’m sure it’s a true Members Club before 10:00.


Put me down as fining it great, a true Mackenzie that welcomes the unconnected golfer.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,


It has been a long time since I played Pasatiempo, but I don’t recall thinking it was too hilly. Nor did my playing partner, a woman I met in college who played a lot of golf in Scotland and probably should have married!


Was I thrilled with #18? No. Not really, but that may have been partly the result of enjoy so many many of the other holes.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have no problem with the 18th being a par 3. I'm super excited to get out to play the Wynn and see Fazio's interpretation. Oddly enough the current Fazio I play almost everyday in Florida ends with a par 3. I believe it is a modern trend associated with the instagram culture. It is much less offensive to take a picture on the 18th tee rather than the 18th green.

[Kalen Braley]

The only one I can think of is 18 at Lakota Canyon, where it has some partial similarities.  But then again, I think LC 18 is a fantastic hole.

That's supposed to be a similar hole?  It's a par-5 for starters, with two forced carries unless you can skip them both and go straight for the green [which is not an option at Pasatiempo].  And is the hole pictured playing sharply uphill?  I have never been there, but I always guessed it was downhill from looking at this photo.

Tom,

I should have mentioned it was a bit of a stretch, but it was the only one I could think of.  The common attributes being:
- It does indeed play uphill, even thou not as much as Pasa 11.
- The ravine/barranca runs more or less down the middle of the hole.
- There are lots of places to play the ball and be woefully out of position or rack up a huge number.

[Mike Schott]

Jim,


I just did a search for Pasatiempo 11 and after reading through a few threads can't believe that I forgot it either. What a God awful goofball of a hole. I will never understand how the same people can defend some of these holes at Pasa and write off the same hole designed by Jim Engh.


On a side note that is relevant. The first time I played Pasa I went around town telling all my buddies how I played a course in California designed by the guy who built ANGC. I hate that about myself. The whole coming of age in the 80's brand name braggadocio.

Different strokes for different folks. I played it prior to Tom’s renovation so it’s been a while. But it’s one of the most memorable courses I’ve played. And 11 was one of my favorite holes. The barranca and the sloping green make the hole.

[DFarron]

I have had an opportunity to play both Cal and Pasatiempo often so here's some random thoughts....




Both Cal and Pasa are difficult walks (I'm 60 and a bit out of shape) but I walk them both because that's how I like to play golf. At the end I feel like I've just played a football game, but I'd hate to give up walking.


A lot of really fun courses are hard walks (Oakmont and U of Michigan course come to mind immediately) and for me they are still great. I come from Michigan where a lot of good courses are a hard walk.


As far as service at Pasa, I have found the staff to be very engaging and have never found them to discourage walking. Generally the members walk and a lot of visitors (as noted by all the "Top 100" courses bag tags on their bags lol) take carts.


For me, Pasa is my 3rd favorite course in the greater SF area but kind of like food everyone has their preferences. If I lived closer to Santa Cruz I'd play there way more often.

[Ronald Montesano]

From my one go-round in 2015, from routing of hole alone (ignoring conditioning and mowing lines) here is how I would define the golf holes:


Brilliant: 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16


Fine: 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12


Acceptable: 1, 17, 18


I would have "acceptable" holes on all great courses. They are defined as such, when compared with the fine and brilliant holes available on their course alone, not in comparison with other holes on other courses.

[JC Jones]

My issues with Pasatiempo have nothing to do with the hilliness or the walkability.  I walked and carried and didnt find it an overly strenuous or otherwise notable walk.


I think there is more to evaluating a routing than walkability and, my main issue with Pasatiempo is that I dont think the course is interesting, with the exception of a few holes, from tee to green.  Sure the greens and the bunkering are aesthetically pleasing, but getting there is a snooze.

[MCirba]

No.

[Niall C]

Is Pasatiempo any hillier than say Dornoch or Cruden Bay or Castle Stuart ? Admittedly only one of those is a great course    but even so Pasatiempo isn't that much of an outlier compared to the norm. Likewise with other MacKenzie designs like Pitreavie and Bonnyton, plenty of elevational change there.


Niall

[Ronald Montesano]

The 1st, 4th, 6th, and 7th holes are essentially straight holes, and the 2nd and 9th bend ever so slightly to the right. 6 is unique, in that it absolutely demands the straightest of shots, given the tall trees that goal-post the fairway drive zone. I can understand why an intrepid driver of the golf ball might find those shots less than exhilarating. I do believe that 3 is a world-beater of a par 3, both from a strategic sense and a photographer's lens. This gets to JCJ's aesthetic comment, which is appropriate.

For me, the placement of bunkers to create a dogleg on a straight hole, is genius. It elevates a golf course to greatness. It is defined by the Old Course, and the affinity for that course from Alister MacKenzie is documented. For that reason, those straight/fairly straight holes have loads of interest for me, and I would play the front nine again and again, if banned in perpetuity from the inward half.

It is the back nine that brings out the adventure. From the moment you face the carry over the barranca fronting 10 tee, you are in for it. You see a canted fairway ahead, the sandy minefield on the left side when you reach the drive zone, and overthinking reaches high gear. 11 is brilliant: the dogleg left that thinks it's a dogleg right. What a way to use another barranca that asks you to do something less. Reminiscent of what was done on the Black course's 4th hole at Bethpage (eschew the safe way left, for the awe-inspiring carry up and up) the 11th remains forever one of my top 18 holes ever played.

Dropping down is such a challenge, in terms of wind, drainage, shot selection, etc. 12 is not long, and the descent allows it to play even shorter ... and trickier. It is a cunning hole, and demands something we haven't yet seen from this golf course. The drive zone is wide enough, but then the funnel effect comes into play, with a tricky, short carry over more broken ground. 13 is the Elyssian Fields, for me, of this golf course. So wide, yet so narrow. What a delight.

14 drops again, then 15 simply appears, like a wood nymph. As daunting as the 3rd hole is, due to length and ascent, the 15th is adorable and equally deadly. I'll leave the slope of 16 green to the architects, but will say that 15 impacted me more than 16. I agree that 17 needs something (again, architects, help me out) and 18 is an enjoyable conclusion, but probably the 3rd or 4th-best par three on the course.

My issues with Pasatiempo have nothing to do with the hilliness or the walkability.  I walked and carried and didnt find it an overly strenuous or otherwise notable walk.


I think there is more to evaluating a routing than walkability and, my main issue with Pasatiempo is that I dont think the course is interesting, with the exception of a few holes, from tee to green.  Sure the greens and the bunkering are aesthetically pleasing, but getting there is a snooze.

[John Kavanaugh]

I don’t buy this notion that MacKenzie was in love with TOC. If he was why did he seek out so much elevation change on his own designs?

[Sven Nilsen]

I don’t buy this notion that MacKenzie was in love with TOC. If he was why did he seek out so much elevation change on his own designs?

Read the last paragraph.


April 4, 1919 Brooklyn Daily Eagle -

[Ronald Montesano]

Yaaaz, Sven. He wrote the book on The Old Course, he wrote the plan/map of it, he used it for inspiration at Augusta National. This point is irrefutable.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()