[Nate Mady]

Direct them over to Big Basin Redwood State Park, or the dozens of open space preserves lining the peninsula...

Gas up the Stihl, Timber.....................

[Tommy_Naccarato]

What makes you guys think the 11th is the original MacKenzie green to begin with? (Or at least your acting like it is.)

Oh, and by the way, it isn't. At least by the looks of it in the old aerial photo.

It is to my understanding that Tom is rebuilding the green where it once sat, thus bringing in that slop towards the front that still exists out in front of the green. It was a much longer, much bigger green at one time.

[Tom_Doak]

Gentlemen:

You all are entitled to your opinions, even if they go against my recommendations to Pasatiempo.  But I want to clean up a fact or two.

a)  The contours of the 11th green today are NOT precisely what MacKenzie built.  The back half of the green may be, but the front of the green was raised deliberately and significantly (by a foot or more) sometime between 1950 and 1970.  This has been the case for many of MacKenzie's severe two-tiered greens (and some of Donald Ross's as well); the front of the 7th green at Cypress Point went away long ago, too.

b)  I recommended rebuilding that green, not because I considered it "too steep", but because that front part of the green doesn't play at all like it was supposed to.  You're supposed to be able to miss at the front of the green and hit a chip shot uphill to the pin; since the change you have to pitch it up a steep little bank.  

c)  We intend to take that bank out by lowering basically the whole green.  We'll probably reduce the back-to-front pitch a bit in the process, but the goal is to get the green complex to play like MacKenzie intended it to play.  If you'd rather have the original 6% slope, that's fine, just remember the current green is not that, either ... the original was more severe.

d)  As for trees, I've been told that someone was killed on the 8th green by a snap hook off the seventh tee, many years ago.   They started planting trees soon after.  If any of us took the trees out, and (God forbid) the same thing happened again ... what do the lawyers in the DG think would happen?

[David Kelly]

... what do the lawyers in the DG think would happen?

Oh God here it comes....

[johnk]

Fun to play, but top 100 anything--no chance!  If it had been done by McGonigal rather than MacKenzie it would be no more visible on our GCA purists radar than Old Del Monte.

I think this name changing fad has made people lose their freakin' minds...

When was the last time you've played there Rich?

Wanna see Pasatiempo in a top 100 list?  Here's my top 4 favorite courses in the world (in no particular order)

Royal Dornoch, Pasatiempo, North Berwick, Sunningdale

Beyond that, I definitely recall a major monkey shit-throwing fiesta directed at "Sir Chunkaby's" accurate defense of the bunker restoration.

And then Tom D. has to come on and re-iterate the details about #11 and the tree program slowly and clearly for all the name changed fadsters and tree polemicists.  It's not like he hasn't spelled that out before.

Gimme a break - those who claim the greens should run at 8, or even worse that just #11 should be slower just to preserve what could never have been a Mackenzie green in the first place are nutters...  C'mon people.  Think #4 green at Spyglass, in reverse.  I can't wait for the restoration of a run up opening into that green.

[ForkaB]

John

There is something in this fanatasy name change thing.  I'm certainly in a "No more Mr. Nice guy/take no prisoners" mood these days.....

Last played Pasa 4-5 years ago.  After the restoration of the bunkers on 10.  Played it another 5 or so times in the 70s-80s.  I never liked the redwood-induced claustrophobia and have always given it no more that 1* in my Mixchelin system, where it would sit with probably another 500 or so courses in the world. It does have some very neat holes, but also too many ho-hum ones for my taste.  Much like North Berwick, come to think of it (another 1* course)!

Cheers

Rich

PS--I'll stand by my recollection of my comments on the bunkers on 10.  Didn't like them when I first looked at them, still don't, probably never will.  If you can point me to any "monkey-shit throwing" on my part I'll be happy to repent.

[THuckaby2]

Richard:

Re fantasy worlds, well... I'd invoke the old phrase about pots and kettles, but you'd likely take credit for coining that also, so  I guess we can leave this as it is.

In terms of recollection of past discussions, you have been proven wrong quite a few times in the past - need I mention the reverse-routing of Cypress (TEP's idea, claimed as original by you, proven otherwise by location of old posts); or running #6 Pebble all the way down to 7 green (my idea, claimed as original by you, proven otherwise by location of old posts)...?

Evidence is not on your side.

But ok, in this case I suppose it matters not.  You don't like the bunkering on 10, for whatever reason.  And now it appears you have little respect for the overall golf course.

That's ok also - to each his own.  I'd agree that it is way overtreed - I've always thought that.  Couple that with how absurd the greens had become, and I too felt for a long time that the course was relatively overrated.  Still that being said, it remains a great golf course.  Doak's work in recent years has added to the greatness, or restored it depending on how you look at things.

So Tom D (and Tommy), thanks for the clarification re 11 green.  It's always been an enigmatic green for me... playing it at slower speeds (ie after rain, or when it hadn't been cut) man was it fun.  That upper area just was really cool when the ball would actually stay there.  The false front always felt kinda weird though - sorta overkill.

But I truly don't care how it was originally, or if it was designed by Killer Kowalski or Alistair Mackenzie.  I just want a green that plays well and compliments the golf hole.  Sounds to me like Tom D. is going to give us that, which is great.

Still the principle of changing greens because they've become unplayable at speed is a scary one.... And at least a little of what's going on at #11 Pasa is because of this.

TH

[Bill_McBride]

I see nothing wrong whatsoever with greens running at 8 vs 11 or 12.  The latter stresses hell out of greens, requires a higher maintenance budget, and makes 5% slopes impossible to play on.  #11 (or #16, or several other greens at Pasa) would be very playable at 8, at 11 or 12 they are just unplayable.

I finally figured out that old photo of #17.  It was taken from where some guy's house is today!

[johnk]

Rich,

There has been a lot of tree clearing since you last played.  While I stipulate that the olden days pics look fabulous, I think people need to realize that the tree situation there is not overbearing.  On a few holes, they are necessary for protection, but on the majority of holes the trees are not impacting the strategy.

Bill,

If one could stimp out #11 today, I don't think the number would be above 9.  People's perceptions have a hard time separating the grass speed from the slope.

I played 3 times in the last year where the pin was blue, in back, and the ball stayed up there easily.  (And yes, I have played there when it does not...)  On the very front of #11, where it's flattest, it's not uncommon to see putts across the green from the right side toward the left be short.

When the greens are slower than 8-9, they are not as fun.  I've played them when they were very slow, and if you are used to the normal speeds, it's disappointing to not have the big breaks.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

John & Huck,
I also think of the green as a ball-buster, almost too much of one, and one part of me is sad to see it go but Tom is right in regards to getting the hole to play as it was originally intended. I think it will make the hole more interesting, although I have always felt that the front entrance --from about 12-16 yards out front was meant to be false front similar to the entrance to the 17th at the Old Course, or at least it always looked to me like it was a part of the original architecture.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()