#16 Pasatiempo

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

1930


2002

What is the opinion of these two versions of the 16th green?

[Peter Galea]

WOW! Looks like the front tier was much bigger with more "pinnable" space. I can't tell maybe there wasn't a front tier. I love the bunker, it's grand. What did you expect me to say? When can I play the one in the top photo?

[JohnH]

Well Tom, it seems to me that the trap on the right shrunk to almost non-existance, meaning it would take a nasty mis-hit to put your ball in there.  And due to lower mowing heights and faster greenspeeds, the green has been made softer to make it puttable from yesteryear..... If the trap could only be the way it was before....

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom:

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a consensus in favor of 1930.  Both the bunker and the green seem much better.

By the way, I enjoyed the Hollins book.  How do you feel about it?

[Dan King]

Might as well compare apples to apples. I think that angle of the 1930s pic doesn't help.  Here is a pic from around the same period (The Doctor died in 1934.) I tried to make the pic as close to the Tom pic as possible:

"Many good golfers consider the second nine holes at Pasatiempo the finest in existence. The short holes are specially good, and I think the sixteenth hole is the best two-shot hole I know. I certainly do not know of any hole which gives so great an advatantage for length and accuracy."
 --Alister MacKenzie

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Dan
Based on your photo it appears the shape of the green has changed. Your photo also appears to have been taken prior to completion of the course - the spotty conditions and the bunkers look to be simply roughed in and not well defined. It looks today like the green has shrunk on the rightside and the right hand bunker is quite a bit smaller.

[A_Clay_Man]

It looks to me as if the good Doctor placed the right bunker virtually inside the Baranka ( as I think he did on 18)
It is a much more intimidating looking beast due mostly to it's naturalness.

Anybody agree?

[JohnH]

I agree.  Is it an intimidating shot for me now as opposed to then?  Not likely.  The very first pic does an injustice, because of the angle - makes the trap look more intimidating than it probably was.

[redanman]

Unfortunately, given the really severe cyclical nature of the weather in NoCal, especially on the hill where PasaT is located, I think the original bunkering scheme was doomed by MaMa Nature.  Not even 3 layers of Bunker-Wol would save that one!

Hard to argue with the brilliance of the original photograph in the thread.  Also note the loss of the little back left hillock with 4 citizens perched upon, probably lost to the street.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

John
Does the original bunker appear to be closer to the green? I don't think the angle of the photograph changes the size of the bunker in relationship to the green, the old bunkers looks as if it is nearly the same sq. ft. as the green (much longer and wider than the current bunker)? And based on its size and proximately to the green don't you think the orginal bunker was more of a factor?

BillV
I have to admit my iginorance, what is bunker-wol used for - steep faced bunkers? And when does it become impractical? It seems like NoCal has its share of deep/steep intimidating bunkers - Cypress Point, Olympic, SFGC, Pebble Beach and others at Pasateimpo - why would this bunker be impractical today?

[GeoffreyC]

I'm certainly impressed with the top photo.  One has to wonder why at least the green size and part of the bunker has not been restored.

Perhaps Tom Doak can comment on this but it certainly reminds me of the two pictures of #18 at Yale that I posted- one from post-"restoration" 2001 and the other from 1925 that George Bahto unearthed.  We sure didn't like the work at Yale and I can honestly say that this is an equally bad job on 16 at Pasa. That bunker was much closer to the green surface, extending at least up to the 2nd tier.  That part of the bunker would not suffer from the weather and could certainly be restored. One bunker is "deep and steep while the other is hardly that.

Perhaps membership didn't want the 1930 look and that's the reason for what was done but so many of these old photos make me want to invent a time machine.

[Mike O'Neill]

redanman,

The top photo looks like the surface water off the green would have run along the fringe from back to front and found its way into the ravine. In the second photo, it looks like some of that surface water is draining straight into the bunker. A big no, no from my standpoint. Anyone know how that drains???

[ed_getka]

I prefer the old bunkering, primarily because of its proximity to the green surface. Like Pete noted the lower level of the greenwas usable back then and would be a good restoration project. The bunkering of today on the right hardly registers on the consciousness and functions primarily to keep balls missed right from rolling down into the barranca.

[Richard_Goodale]

As one who has seen #16 very recently, I have to say that the current bunkering is a substantial improvement from the first picture.  In fact, I think that the hole could do wihtout ANY right side bunkering at all.  Sure, it might not look as purty to those who like McKenzie's frills and lacey undergarments style, but the hole would play better and be more difficult.  Having had to chip my 3rd shot from beside the current bunkers, I can assure you that if I had been in any of those bunkers it would have been a much easier and much more boring golf shot.

And, if you really want to know........my first chip, from about 40 feet right of the hole ended up 50 feet away on the bottom "shelf."  My 4th shot was still rolling when it passed the point where my third shot had ended up.  I managed a great 2-putt from there for my 6.

PS--although I have no degrees in drainage and/or hydraulics, I would have to think that Mike O'Neill is right--the old bunker would have been overwhelmed by H2O and gravity, soon after McK died, if not before....

[Mike O'Neill]

Rich,

I did a really poor job of stating what I wanted to say above. I actually believe that there is a slight swale shown in the top photo that would keep the green surface water from running into the bunker. It would run along the fringe on the top of the bunker and curl around the front. At least in theory that is the way to approach this. I see so many bunkers that catch surface water and it is a bit of a pet peeve. Sometimes it cannot be avoided easily. But it should be avoided to minimize the movement of the sand and the contamination of the sand and the amount of sand work for the crew after a rain. In the second, modern, photo, the far shelf of the green seems to be surface draining into the bunker at about the top of the furthest arch of sand.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Before I posted this photo I was certain of only one reaction, that you would prefer the current photo. You seem to have a thing for ladies undergarments - I'm sure there is nothing to it. What's your opinion of J.Edgar Hoover?

You might want to re-read Mike's assessment, I think you may have misunderstood.

I take it you would consistently vote against any restoration of MacKenzie's work - preferring the mundane to the naturalistic? Any desire to visit the Sandbelt of Melbourne?

[Richard_Goodale]

Mike

Thanks.  My recollection of the gravity on that putting surface was that the fall line was diagonally from left to right, sort of from the road at the top towards Huckaby's bag in the second (modern) picture.  Along that line, to the left of the right bunker, you can see a sort of depression where I would assume McK's original bunker encroached (see picture 1).  At least that's my assumption.  I could be wrong!

The main point I was trying to make is that chipping onto such an extreme putting surface as #16 offers many more options and presents much more difficulty than hitting to it out of a greenside bunker, where there is only one, realtively simple option--flop it up to the upper shelf.

[JohnH]

IMO, the original trap was much more of a factor than the one now, and I agree with Rich in that the hole could do without the trap in present day.  But for the sake of originality, lets bring it back up to the green (impossibility due to runoff?).  Mike hit it on the head - surface runoff must have found its way to the ravine originally.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

There is an old photo in 'The Pasatiempo Story' that confirms Mike's view. The bunker was raised slightly above the putting surface creating a swale. The bunker also appears to have fronted the right half of the green puting more importance on which side of the fairway one would approach from. It may be true that the current set up is more difficult, but the original bunker would been more visually intimidating (something to be avoided) and because of that it may have presented more of a strategic effect. And as BillV pointed out there appears to be hillock to the left that could have been used avoid the right. But on the other hand the worst miss would look to be left and long - you would have big trouble over there.

[Dan King]

Tom, you mean this pic:


One thing to remember about the right bunker on 16 is that is a bunker you want to be in. Hit right of the green and you are begging the ball to get in the bunker. If that bunker wasn't there, the ball would roll all the way down into the barranca, to never be seen again. That hill to the right is steep.

MacKenzie had a similar helping bunker on 18 that no longer exists (to the delight of the ball trolls.)



Another cool pic, that has nothing to do with anything: Ben Hogan teeing off on the first hole:

"The sporting 18th [at Pasatiempo] is truly the magnificent ending due such a delightful round. 135 yards over stupendous hazards and you are on the green. This is not the hole to falter on. Play in bravely."
 --Alister Mackenzie

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Dan
That's the one. The bunker looks to be right up against the green. Considering MacKenzie's philospophy, do you think the bunker was part strategic and part to save those poor souls who might find the barranca?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

At what stage is the 16th in the restoration process?

[Dan King]

Tom MacWood writes:
Considering MacKenzie's philospophy, do you think the bunker was part strategic and part to save those poor souls who might find the barranca?

I'm only reasonably familiar with four of the good doctors' original designs, Pasatiempo, Valley Club of Montecito, Cypress Point (thanks to Geoff's book) and Augusta (thanks to Frank Christian's book.)

It does seem like Mackenzie used the saviour bunker more than most designers. Thinking about Pasatiempo, there are bunkers to the left of the second green, right of the third green, left of the fourth, long on the seventh, left on the ninth, before the barranca on the left side of the fairway on 11th, on the left side of the fairway on 13, left on 15, right on 16 and short of the green on 18. These all either protected balls from going into barranca or rolling down steep slopes.

I can think of a few similar bunkers on Cypress and Valley Club and a couple at Augusta.

"Most golfers have an erroneous view of the real object of hazards. The majority of them simply look upon a hazard as a means of punishing a bad shot, whereas the real object is to make the game more interesting."
 --Alister Mackenzie

[THuckaby2]

Well Tom, it seems to me that the trap on the right shrunk to almost non-existance, meaning it would take a nasty mis-hit to put your ball in there.  And due to lower mowing heights and faster greenspeeds, the green has been made softer to make it puttable from yesteryear..... If the trap could only be the way it was before....

MANY great comments in this thread, but as the guinea pig in the "modern" photo, I must comment:

1. Nothing Pete can do to change the realities of dimension, but please realize the green is VERY uphill from where I am standing here - at least the top part of the green.  I also have somewhat of a downhill lie... the shot is 150 to the middle, 170 to the back pin.... so no, it doesn't take a nasty mis-hit at all to find the bunker - this is a damn hard shot!  And Dan's corrent - if you do hit it to the right - all too possible from the downhill lie - you are indeed praying for the ball to get in there.  It's also pretty damn big, even as it is today - and very deep.  Yes, the 1930 version is "more" of all these things - but as several have said, it might not have survived just due to erosion.

2. The green is most definitely NOT "softened" from 1930.  Look at all those tiers....

3. Damn it's cool to have a shot of me right where MacKenzie was!  Thanks again, Pete!

TH